memshelf_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds workflow context ('small recall entry point') but no additional behavioral disclosure about response size, permissions, or side effects. With annotations present, the description adds limited extra transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. Purpose is stated first, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place. Highly efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool, annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role in the workflow. It doesn't exhaustively explain the index's content but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 0% for the single parameter shelf_path. The tool description adds no information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (a basic description). For a low-coverage scenario, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's role or format, but it does not.

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 'Return' and the resource 'shelf INDEX'. It calls it 'the small recall entry point', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall and search by establishing it as a prerequisite read.

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?

Explicitly says 'Read it before answering anything about past work, then recall only what you need.' This provides a clear when-to-use context and implies an ordered workflow with recall. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the guidance is strong.

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