memory_get_facts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what facts are and that filtering is possible, but it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or handling of limits/errors, leaving significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and provide a compact list of fact categories. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context about fact types and filtering. The absence of an output schema is offset by the straightforward nature of the tool, though it could mention default behavior more explicitly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing that category filtering is optional. The category list in the description mirrors the enum, but does not deepen understanding.

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 retrieves user facts from long-term memory, listing specific examples of fact types. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies this is the tool for fetching stored facts and mentions optional category filtering, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like memory_search or memory_get_context.

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