retrieve_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'find relevant memories' but doesn't disclose how relevance is scored, whether results are paginated, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on failure. The description lacks details needed for safe and effective use.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Find relevant memories'), though it could be more structured with additional context. For its brevity, it communicates the essence without redundancy.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'memories' are, how they're retrieved, the return format, or error handling. For a tool with query and result-limit parameters, more context is needed for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter-specific information. It mentions 'query' generally but doesn't explain its format, constraints, or how 'n_results' affects output. The description fails to clarify semantics beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters poorly understood.

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 'Find relevant memories based on query' states the general purpose (verb 'find' + resource 'memories') but lacks specificity about what 'memories' are or how relevance is determined. It distinguishes from 'store_memory' but not clearly from 'search_by_tag' (both involve finding memories). The purpose is understandable but vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_tag'. The description implies usage for query-based retrieval, but there's no explicit mention of when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or comparison with siblings. Usage is implied from 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.