query_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that explicit session IDs enable "durable scoped continuity," but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how query matching works, what happens if session_id is omitted, or whether there are permission or rate-limit concerns.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core purpose before the session-ID detail. There is no repetition or wasted wording, though "durable scoped continuity" is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. But with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and several sibling memory/session tools, the definition is too sparse: it does not clarify query semantics, project_name usage, or how to choose this tool over alternatives.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only implies the role of session_id through "durable scoped continuity"; the required project_name and query parameters are not explained at all.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Load saved memory," and adds a timing cue, "before work." It is clear enough to understand the tool's basic purpose, but it does not differentiate it from siblings such as get_review_memory or get_session_handoff.

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 phrase "before work" gives a clear usage context, telling the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or guidance about when to use an alternative memory/session tool instead.

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