agent-memory-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: ranking by 'decay-weighted relevance', support for filtering, and that it 'Returns memories with provenance and confidence scores.' This covers output format and ranking logic, but misses details like pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits). For a retrieval tool with no annotations, this is adequate but has gaps.

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 highly concise and well-structured: one sentence states the core purpose and ranking, another adds filtering support, and a third specifies the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 5 parameters, 60% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, filtering behavior, and output format, which is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on error cases, performance, or deeper usage context, leaving room for improvement in a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 60%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining that the tool 'Supports keyword search and category/tag filtering,' which clarifies the purpose of 'query', 'category', and 'tags' parameters beyond their schema descriptions. However, it doesn't address 'min_confidence' or 'limit' parameters, leaving them reliant on schema coverage. The description provides partial compensation, aligning with the baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Recall memories ranked by decay-weighted relevance.' It specifies the verb ('recall') and resource ('memories'), and mentions ranking methodology. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'memory_store' (which presumably stores memories) or 'memory_stats' (which likely provides statistics), though the 'recall' verb implies retrieval versus storage/statistics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory_feedback' or 'memory_stats'. It mentions support for 'keyword search and category/tag filtering', which hints at usage for filtered retrieval, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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