topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return shape (tag board with entries per tag and kind, or title lines), ordering (newest first), and paging behavior (one page at a time). It never explicitly states it is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, though "browses" strongly implies it; that is the only real gap.

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?

Purpose and primary alternative are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then return behavior, then per-argument notes. No sentence is redundant; the quoted triggers ("what happened here lately") buy concrete recall cues cheaply.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need only be sketched, and the description does more than that plus documents every parameter at 0% schema coverage. The remaining gap is the all-vs-page/limit interaction and no explicit statement of read-only safety, which matters given zero annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it defines all four parameters including non-obvious semantics: limit has different defaults (40 board / 30 index) rather than the schema's 0, page 1 means newest, and empty tag means the board. It does not say whether all=true overrides page/limit, leaving one interaction ambiguous.

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?

"Browses memory: the board of all tags, or the title index of one project" names a specific verb and two concrete resources/results. It explicitly contrasts itself with recall ("To find a specific fact, recall is faster"), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It states the triggering condition precisely ("when search terms are missing - a project picked up after months") and names the alternative for the opposite case (recall for a specific fact). It also prescribes follow-up tool calls (show("...") or recall(query, tag="...")), which is explicit when/when-not/next-step guidance.

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