List recorded decisions and contradictions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it surfaces contradictions and intentionally makes superseded choices visible. It does not go into output details, but an output schema exists, so those details are not required here.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: the first states the core function, the second gives the use case, and the third differentiates from the sibling. The most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 zero required parameters, a full output schema, and a clear choice-when condition, the description is complete. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and when to call it is missing.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%: both k and query already have meaningful descriptions. The description's 'caching' example adds a minor illustration but no real semantic lift beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('memories that record decisions, along with contradictions'), and clearly differentiates from memorysync_search by noting that search does not surface disagreements. An agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings immediately.

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?

Gives explicit timing: 'Call this before proposing an architectural change, to check whether the question was already settled and why.' It also names the alternative tool and the deciding condition, making the selection rule unambiguous.

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