memory_related

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

Discloses eventual consistency behavior and the effect of refresh parameter, which goes beyond minimal requirements given no annotations. Doesn't cover error handling or detailed side effects, but sufficient for a read tool.

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?

Two sentences plus a paragraph, each sentence adds value. Front-loads purpose and efficiently explains consistency model and refresh option.

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?

Covers consistency, refresh path, and relationship to rebuild tool. Output schema exists, so return formatting is handled. Could mention validation of memory_id, but overall complete for a read tool.

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 coverage, description adds valuable meaning for 'refresh' as a strong-consistency path. 'memory_id' is minimally explained as 'given entry', but overall compensates well.

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?

Clearly states it returns cross-referenced memories for a given entry. Differentiates from siblings like memory_get (single memory) and memory_rebuild_crossrefs (full rebuild).

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?

Explicitly explains when to use refresh=True for strong consistency and when to use memory_rebuild_crossrefs for full rebuild. Provides context on eventual consistency.

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