memory_hierarchy

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full weight. It only discloses the compact parameter behavior (reduced response size) but omits critical behaviors like pagination, hierarchy depth, sorting, potential performance impact, or whether queries are required. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 short but not optimally front-loaded; the core purpose is stated first, but the Args section is sparse and only covers one parameter. Could be more concise and structured to highlight key parameters and behavior.

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 9 parameters, nested objects in the schema, and a provided output schema (unseen), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the hierarchy structure, parameter combinations, filtering, or return format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only explains the 'compact' parameter (1 out of 9). Other parameters like query, metadata_filters, date_from, date_to, tags_any, tags_all, tags_none, include_root receive no explanation, leaving the agent unable to use them correctly.

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 returns memories organized into a hierarchy from metadata, using the verb 'Return' and specifying the resource 'memories' and the structure 'hierarchy'. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_list (flat list) and memory_related (related items).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_list, memory_hybrid_search, or memory_tag_hierarchy. The description lacks explicit context, when-not-to-use, or mention of prerequisites.

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