SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what's returned ('decisions and recent supporting note excerpts') and a constraint ('without requiring ad hoc SQL'), but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is read-only (implied but not stated), what format the data returns, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how 'recent' is defined. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 that communicates the core purpose and key differentiator. Every word earns its place: 'Return' (action), 'decisions and recent supporting note excerpts' (what's returned), 'without requiring ad hoc SQL' (key benefit/differentiator). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 value documentation) but zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to address parameter semantics or important behavioral context. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters, the description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't mention 'limit', 'offset', or 'compact' at all, nor does it explain what these parameters control. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving all parameters semantically undefined in the description text.

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: 'Return decisions and recent supporting note excerpts' - a specific verb ('Return') and resources ('decisions', 'recent supporting note excerpts'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it 'without requiring ad hoc SQL', which differentiates it from query tools like 'run_read_query' or 'query_view'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other decision/log-related tools (none appear in the sibling list).

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 implies usage context by stating it provides decisions with note excerpts 'without requiring ad hoc SQL', suggesting this is a simplified alternative to raw query tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_recent_activity' or 'get_recent_reasoning', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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