anneal-memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It successfully discloses return ordering ('ordered by timestamp, newest first') and return type ('matching episodes'). However, it omits explicit read-only safety assertions or rate limit warnings that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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?

Four well-structured sentences: purpose (1), usage scenarios (1), return behavior (1), filter summary (1). Zero redundancy; every sentence earns its place with distinct information.

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 7-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return format and ordering. It could improve by defining the domain-specific term 'episode' or describing behavior when no matches are found, but is sufficient for 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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description maps conceptual filter categories ('time range, type, source, and keyword') to parameters but adds no syntax, format details, or semantic constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Query episodes from memory with filters' — a specific verb (Query), resource (episodes), and scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'record' (which implies write/create) by emphasizing retrieval.

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 when-to-use scenarios: 'find prior context before making decisions,' 'locate specific episodes for citation during graduation,' and 'review recent work.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives like 'use record instead for writing'.

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