memory_query

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

With no annotations, description discloses statelessness, determinism, matching fields, sorting rules, and non-reliance on weights. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but provides adequate behavioral context.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information, front-loading the core action and key characteristics.

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 a simple query tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching fields, sorting, and behavior. It could mention the return format explicitly but is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by specifying the fields searched and sorting criteria beyond the schema's parameter 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?

Description clearly states it is a deterministic stateless retrieval tool for keyword matching on id/title/alias/tag/summary, and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not rely on popularity/weights.

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?

Description implies use for deterministic keyword matching without popularity bias, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_query_anchors or memory_read_section.

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