SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions returning 'recent entities, content, and events' but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (time window, recency criteria), whether results are paginated, sorted, or filtered. It also doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality. It could be slightly more specific but doesn't suffer from verbosity.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return format. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain what 'recent activity' encompasses and how it differs from other retrieval tools. For a tool with three parameters and many similar siblings, the description is minimally adequate but leaves important contextual gaps.

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 doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving all three parameters (limit, offset, compact) completely undocumented. However, with only three parameters and default values provided in the schema, the baseline is 3 since the agent can infer basic usage from parameter names and defaults, though the description adds no value.

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 states the tool 'returns recent entities, content, and events' which provides a general purpose, but it's vague about what specific resources or scope it covers. It mentions helping 'an AI resume context quickly' which adds some context but doesn't clearly differentiate this tool from other list/query siblings like list_entities, get_entity, or search_content. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. With many sibling tools for retrieving data (list_entities, get_entity, search_content, get_entity_graph, etc.), there's no indication of when this 'recent activity' tool is preferred over those other options. The mention of 'resume context quickly' implies a specific use case but doesn't articulate when this is the right choice.

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