access_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the tool's operation (pattern retrieval with optional memory filtering) and the prerequisite environment variable. No mentions of side effects, auth needs, or rate limits, but for a read-only cache status tool this is acceptable.

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?

Description is brief (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, conditional behavior, and prerequisite. No redundancy or filler.

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 3 fully documented parameters and an existing output schema (per context signals), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use which parameter, and a critical prerequisite. Sufficient for correct agent invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema: it contextualizes memory_id (shows patterns from that memory vs all) and implies limit and min_count are for filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents parameters well.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves learned access patterns for predictive caching, with distinct behavior for specific memory_id versus all memories. This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from sibling tools like 'warm_cache' or 'predictive_cache_status'.

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?

Provides explicit context on when to use with memory_id vs without, and highlights the required environment variable MEMORY_MCP_PREDICTIVE_CACHE_ENABLED=true. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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