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 states 'Read-only,' which clarifies safety, and explains the two strategies (graph edges and cosine similarity) and their sources (graph_connect or memory_store's relatedTo). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or performance implications, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by strategy details and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does, the second details the methods, the third states behavioral traits, and the fourth provides sibling differentiation. No wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, strategies, safety ('Read-only'), and sibling differentiation. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of results) and doesn't mention error handling or prerequisites, which could be important for a tool with 4 parameters and complex functionality.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool combines graph and semantic strategies, which relates to includeGraph and includeSemantic parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Find memories related to a given memory using knowledge graph traversal and/or semantic similarity.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('memories'), and mechanism ('knowledge graph traversal and/or semantic similarity'), distinguishing it from siblings like graph_explore and 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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use graph_explore for pure graph traversal with depth control; use memory_search for text-based search.' This clearly indicates when to use alternatives, helping the agent choose between sibling tools based on specific needs.

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