search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it works 'regardless of authentication state', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also implies the tool is read-only and non-destructive ('Discovery-only'). However, it doesn't detail rate limits or pagination behavior for the catalog, which would enhance transparency further.

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, zero fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose, immediately followed by usage guidance and prerequisites. Every sentence adds unique information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return contents ('id, title, url'). The tool is simple (1 param, no enums, no nested objects) and the description covers the key behavioral aspect (authentication-agnostic). The only minor gap is absence of details on result ordering or maximum results, but the simplicity keeps completeness high.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating the tool returns 'id, title, url' and that the query searches for 'JauMemory tools or capabilities', providing context on the scope of the search. It could further clarify the format of the query parameter (e.g., free text vs. structured), but already adds value above the schema alone.

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 ('Returns'), the resource ('JauMemory tool catalog'), and the specific fields returned ('id, title, url'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming 'recall' as the alternative for memory access, and clarifies the scope is 'discovery-only' regardless of authentication.

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 tells when to use this tool ('discovery-only') and when not to (use 'recall' for memory access after login). It also specifies the exact prerequisite steps ('mcpLogin + mcpAuthenticate') for the alternative, providing clear guidance against confusion with sibling tools like 'recall' or 'fetch'.

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