memory.query

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses search behavior (semantic + graph), hyde expansion option, and project scoping. It implies read-only nature through the word 'retrieve'. Could mention that it doesn't modify data, but for a query tool this is acceptable.

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 concise with separate sections for purpose, usage, special features. Could be better structured with bullet points, but it's front-loaded and each sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers only purpose, usage, and two parameters. It lacks parameter explanations for most options, making it incomplete. Output schema exists, but parameter semantics are critical for correct invocation.

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%, yet description only explains 'hyde' and 'project' parameters briefly. Six other parameters (type, top_k, min_weight, query_text, memory_scope, memory_branch) are left undocumented. The default values and titles provide minimal info, but the description should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'semantic + graph search of project memories, the standard way to retrieve'. It specifies the verb 'search/retrieve' and resource 'memories', and distinguishes from siblings like memory.get and memory.query_at.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use when: answering how/why/what about a project; retrieving rules, decisions, patterns. Do NOT use for: getting a single memory by ID (memory.get); point in time (memory.query_at); building context package (memory.context).' Also explains when to use hyde=True for short/vague queries.

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