get_person_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds substantial context: memories are uploads of highly variable reliability, the tree is community-edited with frequent conflations, results are hints not evidence, and it requires an access token. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps each paragraph purposeful (what memories are, reliability caveat, community-edit caution, auth). It runs somewhat long for a two-parameter read tool, with mild redundancy between the 'look before relying' and 'hint not evidence' sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description characterizes the returned content (uploaded photographs/documents of mixed evidentiary value) and the auth requirement. It does not describe response structure or pagination, a minor gap for a parameterized read tool.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (count with range/default, person_id with format example), so the schema does the work. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the photographs and documents attached to a tree person,' and clarifies the resource is user uploads (memories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_person_sources (records) and get_person (profile data) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives strong interpretive guidance ('look before relying on it,' 'follow it to an underlying record and cite that instead'), which steers the agent toward get_record/search_records. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use when, so it falls short of the 5-level explicit when/when-not routing.

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