remember_similar_texts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are a human-readable string with relevance, and recommends n_results > 10. It does not mention side effects, authorization, or rate limits, but for a read-only operation this is acceptable.

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 concise, using a standard docstring format with Args and Returns. It is short (4 lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor waste: the Args/Returns structure could be more compact but is acceptable.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return type. It contextualizes the tool among siblings (retrieval vs. memorization). Missing details include search scope and performance considerations, but overall sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic descriptions for both parameters (query_text and n_results) and adds a noteworthy recommendation for n_results. However, it does not explain how similarity is determined or the meaning of relevance scores, leaving gaps.

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 tool's purpose: to query memory for texts similar in meaning to a given query. It uses a specific verb ('query memory') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'memorize_text' which add content rather than retrieve.

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 context (retrieving from memory) and contrasts with siblings that are for memorization. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, such as alternatives or prerequisites.

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