mem0 Memory System

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of searching without detailing aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use the tool effectively in context with its siblings.

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 description mentions 'based on a query,' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already documents all parameters well, and the description doesn't compensate with extra context or examples.

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 the action ('searches') and resource ('stored memories in Mem0'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_memory' or 'delete_memory' beyond the basic verb difference, missing specific scope or functional distinctions that would warrant 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as how it differs from 'add_memory' or 'delete_memory' in practice, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It's a generic statement that offers no contextual usage advice.

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