memory_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a read operation ('Get'), but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what 'detailed info' encompasses. Insufficient for safe use.

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 underspecified sentence. While brief, it fails to earn its place by providing meaningful substance, making it more of a placeholder than a concise, helpful guide.

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 has one parameter, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what the output contains, which is critical given the vagueness of 'detailed info.'

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%. The description does not explain the 'project' parameter's meaning, format, or expectations (e.g., ID vs. name). The default null is not addressed.

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 states 'Get detailed info for a project,' which is a verb+resource but is vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_version or memory_get_rules, leaving ambiguity about what specific information is returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent has no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it compares to other memory tools.

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