discover_public_memories

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, how the registry is scoped, or what happens with an empty query.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail rather than pure economy.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves too much unspecified: return shape, pagination, and query semantics are all absent. It is not complete enough for an agent to call confidently without guessing.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter has only a default of empty string, with no documented meaning, matching behavior, or format. The description does not compensate by explaining what the query searches over, so an agent cannot tell whether it is a keyword, prefix, or empty-means-list-all filter.

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 (Find) and resource (public memory archives) with scope (listed in the Life Memory registry), which is enough to separate it from siblings like search_memory or list_memory_profiles. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer when, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over search_memory or list_memory_profiles, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point for the public registry.

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