memory_facts

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: facts are triples with confidence and expiration dates, and the default is to retrieve only valid facts. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details. No wasted words.

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 list tool with good annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the data structure and validity filtering. It could mention ordering or page limits, but is acceptable as is.

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 describes the single boolean parameter 'valid_only' with default true and a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, so baseline score applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 it retrieves a list of currently valid structured facts with subject-predicate-object triples, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_store (store facts) and memory_recall (retrieve by query). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing memory_facts over siblings like memory_recall or memory_context.

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