mempalace_diary_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the agent-scoping constraint ('never widens across agents') and clarifies filters are hard, but these are also partially documented in the schema. It does not describe return format or pagination, but an output schema exists, so this is acceptable. Overall, it adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 only two sentences but packs in the core action, scoping constraints, and a cross-reference to an alternative tool. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 having 8 parameters, the schema fully documents each one, and the output schema exists to specify return structure. The description covers purpose, scope, and key usage constraints, while annotations cover safety. The cross-reference to mempalace_search also clarifies placement within the tool suite, making the description complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, so each of the 8 parameters is already explained in the input schema. The tool description briefly reiterates that agent_name is required and that wing/room/topic filters are hard, but it adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool performs 'Semantic search over diary entries for one explicit agent,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by noting 'Use mempalace_search for drawer memory,' making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says the tool requires agent_name and never widens across agents, providing clear scope. It also directs users to mempalace_search for drawer memory, giving an alternative for a different memory type, which meets the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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