memo_tool_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining that memo's proxy prunes schemas of recently-unused tools, that memo's own tools remain callable, and that other servers' tools are still reachable. This is valuable behavioral context for understanding why a tool might be absent.

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 compact yet information-dense: purpose, use case, background, and follow-up action are all covered in three sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and the primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name exists.

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?

The description fully explains why this tool exists, when to invoke it, what to pass, and what to do after receiving the result. An output schema is present, so return value details are already structured. The description also addresses the subtle scenario of pruned schemas, which is essential context for an agent encountering a missing 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%, and the schema already documents the 'name' parameter with concrete examples. The description restates that the tool is called with a tool name but does not add substantive detail about the parameter's format, constraints, or edge cases beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a tool's live description and parameter schema by name.' This clearly identifies it as a meta-documentation lookup tool, which distinguishes it from all sibling tools that operate on memo content or sessions. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when a tool expected from a prior session or documentation is missing from the current tool list. It also explains the pruning context and instructs the agent to call the retrieved tool directly by name afterward. This is strong usage guidance that prevents misuse.

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