memory_read

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds that the memory is persistent and shared across multiple AI tools, and that results are ranked by relevance using semantic similarity and concept associations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise yet thorough, with sentences that each add value. It is well-organized with purpose, usage, and output details.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input, output format (ranked id-carrying matches), persistence, shared context, and ties to sibling tools. No missing essential information.

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% and already explains each parameter sufficiently. The description does not add significant detail beyond the schema, but it does provide usage context that the schema alone may not convey, such as the type of information to query.

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 it is for searching long-term memory for past information and gives examples (user preferences, past decisions, project setup). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that returned ids can be used with memory_feedback and memory_delete.

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 advises to check here first when unsure about prior knowledge, and distinguishes from general world knowledge. It also explains the shared nature of the memory across sessions and tools, guiding appropriate use.

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