space_memories

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms this with 'List or search memories'. It adds the return format ('JSON string with memories'), which is beyond the annotation. No contradictions and no additional behavioral traits disclosed, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 very concise: two lead sentences plus a structured docstring. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently organizes parameter details under 'Args'. No redundant or empty statements.

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 simple list/search tool with readOnly annotations and an output schema (mentioned but not detailed), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It does not elaborate on search semantics or pagination beyond limit, but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description's docstring provides clear, meaningful descriptions for all three parameters: 'space_id: The space ID to query', 'query: Optional search query to filter memories semantically', and 'limit: Maximum number of memories to return (default 50)'. This fully compensates for the missing schema 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 explicitly states 'List or search memories within a context space', which clearly identifies the verb (list/search) and resource (memories) with a scoping context (space). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_memories' or 'recall' that may operate differently.

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 usage for listing/searching memories in a specific space, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_memories' or 'recall') or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or sibling comparisons are provided.

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