Memory Box MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'check' and 'processing status', which suggests a read-only operation, but does not clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the status values might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., status values like 'processing', 'done', or error messages), nor does it address potential side effects or dependencies. For a tool that likely interacts with asynchronous processes, more context is needed for effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with 'memory_id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the memory to check status for'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('check') and resource ('processing status of a memory'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_memories' or 'get_related_memories' by focusing on status rather than content retrieval. However, it could be more specific about what 'processing status' entails (e.g., pending, completed, failed).

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 like 'get_all_memories' or 'search_memories'. The description implies it's for checking status after an operation (e.g., after 'save_memory'), but this is not explicitly stated, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether bucket names must be unique, what happens on duplicate names, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool with one parameter.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns bucket ID), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of a write operation, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'bucket_name'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new bucket for organizing memories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_buckets' or 'delete_bucket' beyond the obvious create vs read/delete distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether buckets must be unique), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_buckets' or 'delete_bucket'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the default behavior (deleting empty buckets) and the effect of the 'force' parameter (deleting with content), which are useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately clarifies the default and optional behaviors. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete by covering the default and forced deletion behaviors. However, it lacks critical details like permissions, confirmation prompts, or error cases, which are important for safe usage, making it only adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'force' parameter's effect but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a bucket'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_bucket' or 'get_buckets'. It also specifies the default behavior ('empty by default') and an optional capability ('use force to delete with content'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 clear context on when to use the 'force' parameter (to delete a bucket with content) versus the default (empty bucket), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_memory' or warn about prerequisites, such as checking bucket emptiness first, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, requires special permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related memories), or provides confirmation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with just four words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), whether the action is reversible, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'get_all_memories'. More context is needed given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'memory_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the memory to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific memory'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_bucket' or explain what distinguishes a 'memory' from other resources in this system.

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 'update_memory' or 'delete_bucket', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing the memory ID or whether deletion is reversible. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support' but doesn't explain how pagination works (e.g., using limit/offset parameters), what the response format looks like, or any constraints like rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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 that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how to interpret results. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for using this tool effectively is missing, especially given multiple sibling retrieval tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond mentioning 'pagination support' (which relates to limit/offset), but doesn't explain other parameters like bucket_id or source_type. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('all memories'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_bucket_memories' or 'search_memories' beyond mentioning pagination support, which is a feature rather than a differentiator.

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 'get_bucket_memories' or 'search_memories'. It mentions pagination support but doesn't explain when this is preferable over other retrieval methods, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves memories but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned memories. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or structural 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no structured behavioral hints. It doesn't explain what 'memories' are in this context, how they're returned, or any operational constraints. For a retrieval tool in a system with multiple memory-related siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper use.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (bucket_id, include_reference_data, limit, offset) with their purposes, types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced semantic value.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('memories from a specific bucket'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_all_memories' or 'search_memories', which would require more specificity about scope or filtering capabilities.

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 'get_all_memories' (which might retrieve memories across all buckets) or 'search_memories' (which might offer more flexible querying). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing bucket, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list takes. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., bucket names, IDs, metadata), how it's structured, or any prerequisites for use. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of all available buckets'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bucket_memories' or 'get_all_memories', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'get_bucket_memories' (for memories in a specific bucket) and 'get_all_memories' (for all memories regardless of bucket), the agent lacks context for choosing appropriately.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'semantically similar' but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., algorithm, performance implications) or other traits like rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Find semantically similar memories'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the complexity of semantic similarity operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like how similarity is computed, what the output looks like (e.g., list of memories with scores), or potential limitations. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to fully understand its use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('memory_id' and 'min_similarity') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how similarity is calculated or typical threshold values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('semantically similar memories to a specific memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_memories' or 'search_memories' by focusing on similarity to a specific memory rather than listing or keyword-based search. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how 'semantically similar' is determined (e.g., embeddings, content analysis), which prevents a perfect score.

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 'search_memories' or 'get_all_memories'. It doesn't specify scenarios where semantic similarity is preferred over keyword search or list retrieval, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing memory ID. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieve,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what 'usage statistics and plan information' entails, how the data is returned, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a server with multiple siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly avoids redundant information.

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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('user usage statistics and plan information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like check_memory_status or get_buckets), which are also retrieval operations but for different resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With siblings like get_buckets or get_all_memories that also retrieve data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Save a memory' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this creates new or overwrites existing memories, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with a single sentence: 'Save a memory to Memory Box'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose in stating the core action.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'memory', how saving interacts with the system, what happens on success/failure, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a write operation with rich input structure, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 100%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't enhance understanding of semantics. However, with comprehensive schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Save a memory to Memory Box' clearly states the action (save) and resource (memory to Memory Box), but it's quite generic. It doesn't specify what a 'memory' is in this context or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_memory' or 'create_bucket'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. With siblings like 'update_memory', 'create_bucket', and 'search_memories', the description offers no context on prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It mentions 'semantic search' which implies meaning-based rather than keyword-based matching, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'memory' resource. The description adds some context about the search method but leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's purpose.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, semantic search functionality) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the core operation but lacks context about what 'memories' are, how results are structured, or performance characteristics. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, constraints, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema, with no additional value from the description.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('memories') with the specific method 'semantic search'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_memories' (which presumably retrieves all without search) and 'get_related_memories' (which likely finds related items rather than semantic search). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential text-based search tools if they existed.

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. It doesn't mention when semantic search is appropriate compared to other search methods, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_all_memories' or 'get_related_memories' for context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'Update an existing memory' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The mention of 'relationships' hints at complexity but lacks operational details.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing memory') followed by specific updatable elements. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's 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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'relationships' entail in 'reference_data', doesn't mention the required 'memory_id', and provides no information about return values or error conditions. The schema handles parameter documentation, but behavioral context is severely lacking.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by listing 'text, bucket, and relationships' which correspond to 'text', 'bucket_id', and 'reference_data' parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing memory'), specifying what can be updated ('including text, bucket, and relationships'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'save_memory' (create) and 'delete_memory' (remove), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_memory' for creating new memories or 'delete_memory' for removal. It mentions updating 'relationships' but doesn't clarify when that's needed versus other tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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