find_matching_memories_for_rule

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is a read-only preview (non-persisting), returning matching entities. This adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the non-destructive nature.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first defines purpose, second clarifies non-persistence. No unnecessary information, front-loaded with key 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 simple preview function, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and that it does not save. It could mention matching semantics (substring/exact) but overall 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond calling it a 'candidate exclusion pattern,' but no further details on usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Dry-run preview: return entities whose observations would match the candidate exclusion pattern' with a specific verb ('return'), resource ('entities'), and scope ('matching candidate exclusion pattern'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_exclusion_rule by explicitly noting it does NOT persist.

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 explicit context: 'Dry-run preview' and 'Does NOT persist the rule,' implying it should be used before adding a rule to test matches. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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