baron_memory_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It confirms read-only intent via 'Read' and lists optional parameters, but omits critical behavioral traits: return format, pagination behavior, default values for omitted params, authentication requirements, and what 'learning' vs 'followup' specifically query. Minimal disclosure beyond basic operation.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and compact operation details using backticks and semicolons. Every word serves a purpose with no filler. Efficient and scannable.

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?

Despite 5 parameters and no output schema/annotations, the description does not explain the semantics of 'learning' and 'followup' operations, expected return values, or any constraints. A query tool lacking return format or operation semantics leaves the agent with significant gaps. Incomplete for the complexity level.

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 only 20% (op described). The description adds meaning by grouping parameters per operation: learning (tag, text, limit) and followup (status, tag, limit). This clarifies which parameters are relevant for each op, compensating for the schema's lack of per-parameter descriptions.

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 reads Baron's own store, uses specific verbs 'learning' and 'followup', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like baron_memory_append (write) and other issue/SCM tools. 'Read Baron's own store' plus operation listing makes the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool is for querying memory store but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools (e.g., baron_issue_read for issues). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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