memory_schema

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns schema, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects such as whether the schema reflects the latest state or if there is any caching. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not rich detail, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the key information. No redundancy or fluff, so it earns a 4. Could potentially be slightly more specific but is already effective.

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 the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. The description clearly states the content of the schema (kinds, fields, filters) which is the main information an agent needs. It is complete for a metadata-retrieval tool, though it could mention if it's the full or partial schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter definitions. The description explains what the tool returns (kinds, fields, filters), which is the core semantic information. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description is effective at conveying the purpose, earning a baseline of 4.

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 states it returns the memory schema with kinds, fields, and filters. This is clear and specific about what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish it from siblings like memory_explain, which might also provide schema-related information. The description is clear but not fully oriented against siblings.

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 implies that this tool is used to retrieve schema information, which is a common first step before using other memory tools. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like memory_explain, or when not to use it. There is clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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