get_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination and filtering but lacks details on read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination mechanics (e.g., cursor, offset), or behavior when no memories match. The contrast with 'search' is vague.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. The tool is straightforward, with 0 required parameters and clear schema. However, pagination behavior (e.g., default limit, ordering) is not addressed, slightly reducing completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter (user_id, agent_id, run_id, limit) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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: 'Page through memories using filters instead of search.' It uses a specific verb ('page through'), identifies the resource ('memories'), and explicitly contrasts with 'search' (sibling tool search_memories), distinguishing it effectively.

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 usage for paginated filtering rather than search, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like search_memories. No clear prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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