memora

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is read-only, what similarity threshold semantics apply, or performance characteristics. The mention of 'vector embeddings' hints at the mechanism but doesn't explain behavioral implications.

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 with no redundancy. However, extreme brevity contributes to underspecification; the conciseness is technically good but comes at the cost of necessary detail given the tool complexity.

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 4 parameters with zero schema documentation, numerous sibling tools requiring differentiation, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe returns), the description fails to address parameter semantics or usage context.

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%, requiring the description to compensate for undocumented parameters (top_k, metadata_filters, min_score). The description mentions none of these specifically, only implicitly referencing the query concept through 'semantic search'. Inadequate compensation for the schema gap.

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 performs semantic search using vector embeddings, identifying the core mechanism. However, it fails to specify the search domain (the memory system) or distinguish from siblings like memory_hybrid_search or memory_clusters, which is critical given the extensive sibling tool list.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_hybrid_search or memory_list. The description offers no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.

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