query_memory_natural

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 discloses that the tool classifies intent, extracts keywords, executes search, and returns parsed intent, results, and optional LLM answer. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects, but the read-only nature is implied by 'query.'

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then examples, and finally the return value. It is not overly wordy, though the examples take space. Front-loading the core action is effective.

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 sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and usage. It explains what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. No critical gaps for a query tool.

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 all three parameters. The description adds value by providing example questions and explaining the 'synthesize' parameter's default behavior. It clarifies the optional 'project' scope, going beyond the schema's brief 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 tool's purpose: 'Query memories using natural language instead of structured tool syntax.' It specifies the verb (query), resource (memories), and method (natural language). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely use structured queries.

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 examples of natural language questions and explains that the tool automatically classifies intent and executes search strategies. It implies usage for informal queries but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. However, the context with sibling names like knowledge_search suggests structured alternatives.

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