open_memories

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it states that results are paginated, explains page/page_size navigation, covers return fields (memories, not_found, pagination), and lists the ValueError for invalid IDs or exceeding 100 IDs. It also clarifies that include_relations and include_scores control relationships and decay scores/age, respectively.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Raises) and front-loaded with the purpose. It is clear and efficient, though there is some redundancy (pagination is explained both in prose and in the Args/Returns sections), preventing a perfect conciseness score.

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 description is complete for a moderately complex tool: it explains input, output, pagination, error behavior, and provides examples. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still covers the key fields. No prerequisites or exclusions are missing, and the tool's read-only nature is implied by 'retrieve'.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so comprehensively: every parameter (memory_ids, include_relations, include_scores, page, page_size) is described with its purpose, default (including the max 100 IDs constraint for memory_ids and max 100 for page_size). This goes well beyond the bare schema and compensates fully.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve specific memories by their IDs.' It also clarifies scope by referencing the reference MCP memory server's open_nodes functionality, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search_memory or save_memory.

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 (retrieving known IDs) and gives pagination examples, but it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative or when not to use this tool. It lacks an explicit exclusion or alternative recommendation, making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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