get_relevant_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (JSON list) and names parameters, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or the meaning of 'relevance.' The tool is read-only, but this is not explicitly stated. More behavioral context is needed.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter explanations. The Args section is well-structured. No unnecessary sentences.

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 output schema exists and the description explains the return, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. It covers when to use and parameter functions. However, it lacks details on how relevance is determined or how the tool filters by workspace and repository context, which would improve completeness.

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. It provides an Args section with brief explanations for each parameter: workspace (default if not specified), repository, and categories (comma-separated, with example). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more detailed about formats.

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 'Get all memories relevant to the current context,' providing a specific verb and resource. It gives usage examples (start of PR review, working with a repository) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_memories' and 'search_memories' by focusing on relevance to context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 advises to call this tool 'at the start of a PR review or when working with a repository to retrieve all applicable standards and learnings,' which gives clear contextual guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for the agent.

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