trailmem_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (#id, type, status, edge count, preview) but does not mention mutation, authentication, rate limits, or safety. The name and purpose imply a read-only search, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and return format, with no redundant or extraneous words. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description only briefly mentions return content (e.g., 200-char preview). It does not explain the semantics of 6 parameters, required vs. optional usage, or how filters work. A search tool with this many parameters needs more guidance.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any parameter. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone (e.g., text, limit, project), which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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's purpose: 'Search memories (semantic + keyword).' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('memories'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting what it returns and that trailmem_show provides full content.

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 explicitly guides the agent to use trailmem_show for full content, implying when this tool is insufficient. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools for related tasks like editing or storing.

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