Chat

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

The description discloses that the tool returns exact retrieved context, giving some insight into behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to mention safety aspects (e.g., read-only nature), rate limits, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly better structured to include parameter summaries, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 5 parameters, lack of output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter roles or distinguish from similar tools, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, yet the description only implicitly addresses the 'question' parameter. Other parameters (kind, tags, limit, namespace) are not explained, providing minimal added semantic value.

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 verb 'Ask' and resource 'Pathmark memory', indicating a question-answering tool. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ask_memory', which likely has a similar purpose, reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ask_memory', 'recall_memory', or 'search_memory'. The description lacks any context about preferred use cases or exclusions.

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