Search the archive to retrieve only undelivered facts and next query terms. Save them to permanent memory, then invoke the absorb step to continue the memory transfer.
Cerca nel serbatoio e consegna solo fatti non ancora consegnati, con i termini da cercare dopo (next_queries). Salva i fatti nella tua memoria permanente e poi chiama travaso_assorbi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavioral context: only undelivered facts are returned, next_queries are provided, and the caller must persist facts before invoking travaso_assorbi. However, it does not disclose whether the search mutates delivery state, what output format to expect, or any constraints.
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 short sentences front-load the core search behavior before adding workflow guidance. There is no filler, though the final clause is an instruction to the agent rather than a property of the tool.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a usable workflow and mentions next_queries, but it omits return structure details and the meaning of limit. It is adequate for a simple call, with clear gaps remaining.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it never explains the 'limit' parameter and only loosely implies that 'query' contains search terms via the phrase 'termini da cercare'. This leaves one of two parameters effectively undocumented.
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 identifies a specific action ('Cerca nel serbatoio') and a distinct scope: it returns only undelivered facts plus next_queries. It also signals a relationship to travaso_assorbi by instructing that sibling be called afterward, though it does not explicitly contrast all sibling tools.
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?
Usage is implied through the workflow instruction to save facts and then call travaso_assorbi, but the description does not state when to prefer travaso_cerca over travaso_stato, travaso_prossimi, travaso_archivio, or travaso_ripristina, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.