memory.pr.query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what authentication is needed, or any rate limits or pagination behavior. The description implies a query but provides no depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It front-loads the main action but misses important parameter details. Conciseness is adequate, but structure is minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'PR memories' are, how filtering works, or that limit controls count. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions three parameters (project, repo, changed file) but omits three others (pr_number, limit, summary_query). An agent cannot know the purpose of pr_number or summary_query from the description alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool queries PR memories and specifies three filter dimensions (project, repo, changed file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory.query (general query) and memory.pr.create (creation). The verb-resource combination is specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory.query or memory.pr.linked_memories. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.