tidbits-memory

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 sorting by votes descending, which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'list' but not explicit), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 key action and sorting detail with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, 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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the sorting behavior but misses usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks sufficient context for safe and 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly references 'votes' as a sorting criterion, which relates to the 'order_by' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter or provide details on parameter formats or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for low coverage without fully addressing the gaps.

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 ('List all memories') and specifies the sorting method ('sorted by votes descending'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_memories' (which might have different filtering) and 'create_memory' (a write operation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_memories' in terms of scope or filtering, keeping it from 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 'get_memories' or 'create_memory'. It lacks context such as use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and description alone.

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