aion_memory_browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds the requirement for AION_SESSION_TOKEN and lists valid categories. However, it doesn't disclose the return format or behavior when no category is specified, which leaves gaps for a browse operation.

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 sentences (plus category list) efficiently convey purpose, auth requirement, and valid inputs. No waste.

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?

For a simple 1-param read tool, the description covers purpose, auth, and category options. It doesn't describe the return payload, but with no output schema, a brief statement about returned facts would improve completeness; still, it's mostly 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?

The schema already documents 'category' as an optional filter, so baseline is 3. The description adds enumerated category values (preferences, family, work, etc.), giving semantics beyond the schema's generic 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?

Description states 'Browse Aion's fact memory' with a clear verb and resource, and mentions optional category filtering. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling memory_get_facts, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied (to browse facts, use this tool) and it mentions the auth prerequisite, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling memory tools like memory_search or memory_get_facts.

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