claude-session-continuity-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's read-only, has a limit of 20 IDs per call, and returns an array of complete memory objects with specific fields listed. However, it doesn't mention error handling or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third adds important behavioral details—all without unnecessary words.

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 read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. However, it doesn't specify the exact structure of returned objects or error conditions, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds some context about the parameter's purpose ('to retrieve full details') and the 20-ID limit, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieve full content') and resource ('one or more memories by ID'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its designed relationship with 'memory_search'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Designed as a follow-up to memory_search: first search to find relevant IDs, then use memory_get to load full details') and distinguishes it from alternatives by naming the specific sibling tool to use first.

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