memoire

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'load and return'), has no prerequisites, specifies the data source (local directory), explains error handling ('never throws — loads gracefully'), and details the return structure. However, it doesn't mention performance aspects like rate limits or caching, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites, return details, error behavior, and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (read-only data retrieval with structured returns) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, data source, return format, error handling, and usage scenarios, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand its behavior.

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 tool has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information (as there are none), which is appropriate. It earns a 4 because it compensates by detailing the return object structure, which is valuable given the lack of an output schema, though it doesn't fully replace a formal schema.

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 with specific verbs ('load and return') and resources ('project's user research store'), listing the exact components it retrieves (insights, personas, themes, source references). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on research data retrieval rather than design analysis, code generation, or other functions.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before running compose with a research-driven intent,' 'to inspect what research context is available,' or 'to verify that a research import succeeded.' It also provides alternatives by mentioning that research data must be populated via specific commands (e.g., `memi research from-file`) beforehand, and it notes that combining with 'compose' grounds decisions in user data.

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