get_person_memories

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

Goes well past the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses that an access token is required, that contents are arbitrary user uploads of wildly varying evidentiary quality, and that the tree is community-edited with common same-name conflations. Those are exactly the operational caveats an agent cannot infer from 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the caveats are sequenced sensibly. It is somewhat long for a two-parameter read tool, and the 'recollection written down eighty years later' flourish is editorial rather than load-bearing, but most sentences carry information.

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 should say what a memory looks like when returned (metadata, links, whether download_image is needed to get the bytes). It covers content caveats and auth well but leaves the return shape entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a tool whose whole job is retrieving media.

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%, with person_id format ('K2ZP-VY1') and the count range (1-100, default 25) already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the photographs and documents attached to a tree person,' then concretizes what a memory actually is (headstone photo, scanned letter, Bible page, typed story). It never names the nearby sibling get_person_sources, which is the tool most likely to be confused with this one, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives real guidance on how to treat the output ('look before relying on it', 'a hint where to look, not evidence: follow it to a record and cite that'), which is useful interpretive framing. But it never says when to choose this tool over get_person_sources, get_person, or the record/image tools, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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