get_cursor_memories

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 the tool retrieves memories but offers no details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if no filters are applied. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key filtering options. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no redundant or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Cursor memory' entails, the return format, or error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to fully understand its operation and limitations.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (category, limit, tag) with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by category or tag, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or interaction effects between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('saved Cursor memories'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from 'save_cursor_memory' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'fetch_link_documentation', which might also involve retrieval but of different resources.

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 usage for filtering memories by category or tag, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_link_documentation'. It mentions filtering options but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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