jenn_get_memories

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 uses 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, return format, or behavior on invalid categories. The reference to 'AION's Jenn memory database' adds some context, but overall transparency is basic.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the optional filter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no output schema. The description tells the agent what the tool does and how to filter. It lacks information about return structure, but given the simplicity, the description is adequate. No annotations exist to supplement, so this is complete enough for a basic retrieval 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 the category parameter fully described in the schema. The description repeats the category list ('biography, relationship, family, interests, life_events') without adding new meaning beyond the schema. While 'Optionally filter' clarifies optionality, the schema already indicates it is not required.

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 function: 'Get memories about Jenn from AION's Jenn memory database.' This is a specific verb+resource pair. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_get_facts or memory_search, but the focus on 'Jenn' and 'memories' makes the purpose 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve memories about Jenn. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of 'Jenn memory database' implies the appropriate use case. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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