get_topic_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are returned in newest-first order, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as whether the tool returns an empty list if no topic matches, any rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 extremely concise: one line stating the purpose and one line for the parameter with an example. No wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded immediately, allowing the agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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?

The tool has one parameter, an output schema exists (so return format is covered elsewhere), and the description succinctly covers what the tool does and how to use the parameter. It is complete for a simple read-only retrieval tool. Some may argue it could mention that it filters from memory entries, but that is implicit.

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 explains the 'topic' parameter as 'Topic tag to filter by' and provides concrete examples ('metis-setup', 'phd-research'), adding meaning beyond the schema's simple type definition. This helps the agent understand what values to supply. It does not list all possible values, but given no enums, it is sufficiently informative.

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 'Return all memory entries tagged with a specific topic, newest first.' This specifies the verb ('return'), the resource ('memory entries tagged with a topic'), and the ordering ('newest first'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_memory (which likely does full-text search) or list_recent_memory (which may not filter by topic).

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?

The description provides a usage example (e.g., 'metis-setup', 'phd-research') and implies when to use this tool: when you need to retrieve memory entries filtered by a specific topic tag. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though these are implied by sibling tool names.

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