memory_template

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only, matching the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the return format (markdown with section headers for known types) and behavior for unknown types (generic scaffold with known:false). No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, and presence of annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, output format, behavior for known/unknown types, and read-only nature. No gaps remain.

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% and the schema description covers the parameter. The description adds value by listing example types (decision, incident, etc.) and explaining the generic behavior for unknowns, enhancing semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 fetches an Obsidian-style note scaffold for a document_type to maintain structural consistency. It uses the specific verb 'fetch' and identifies the resource as a note scaffold, distinguishing it from sibling tools that store or retrieve actual memories.

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 clear guidance: fetch the scaffold, then store it via memory_store. It implies when to use (prior to storing structured notes) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling tools include memory_store and others.

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