SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Return a compact architecture-oriented node and relationship summary,' which implies a read-only operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Return') and key attributes ('compact architecture-oriented'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every element serves a purpose, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks usage guidelines, detailed parameter semantics, and behavioral context. For a read operation with structured output, it meets basic needs but leaves significant gaps in agent guidance.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'compact' and 'architecture-oriented,' which loosely relates to the 'compact' parameter and overall function but doesn't explain node_limit, relationship_limit, or how compact affects the output. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's titles and types, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('architecture-oriented node and relationship summary'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies 'compact' and 'architecture-oriented' which helps differentiate it from siblings like get_entity_graph or get_dependency_view. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entity_graph, get_dependency_view, or list_entities. It mentions 'compact' and 'architecture-oriented' but doesn't specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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