memora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the `compact` mode behavior (returning id/preview/tags vs full data) and notes the hierarchy is derived from metadata. However, it fails to describe the hierarchy structure itself (tree depth, nesting logic), pagination behavior, or performance characteristics of the 9-parameter query system.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args:' section for `compact` is slightly informal for MCP conventions but efficiently conveys the parameter's behavior without verbosity. No redundant or filler text is present.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional filtering parameters and complex hierarchy output, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the complete lack of documentation for 8/9 input parameters—particularly the tag filtering and date range options—creates significant gaps for an agent attempting to construct valid queries.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage across 9 parameters, the description must compensate but only documents `compact`. Critical filtering parameters (`query`, `metadata_filters`, `tags_any`/`all`/`none`, date ranges, `include_root`) remain completely unexplained, leaving users to guess at filtering syntax and semantics.

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 organised into a hierarchy derived from their metadata,' specifying both the action (return/organize) and the organizational principle (metadata-derived hierarchy). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like `memory_tag_hierarchy` (which organizes tags, not memories) or `memory_clusters`.

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 `memory_list`, `memory_list_compact`, or `memory_clusters`. It doesn't indicate whether this is for browsing, searching, or analyzing memory structure, nor does it mention prerequisites or filtering best practices.

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