Stateless Agent Memory Engine (SAME)

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the tool's purpose (finding similar notes) and use cases, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like how similarity is calculated, potential performance considerations, or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, the description provides some context but lacks deeper behavioral insights.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and use cases, followed by parameter details and return information. Every sentence earns its place, but the Args section could be integrated more seamlessly to avoid redundancy with the schema. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose and usage. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and basic parameter info, though it lacks output details (no output schema provided) and deeper behavioral context. With annotations indicating safety, it provides a solid foundation but could benefit from more on return values or limitations.

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%, with both parameters (path and top_k) fully described in the schema. The description repeats this information in the Args section without adding extra meaning, such as format details for 'path' or implications of 'top_k' on results. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with additional semantic insights.

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 specific action ('Find notes that cover similar topics to a given note') and resource ('notes'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_notes or search_across_vaults by focusing on similarity rather than keyword-based searching. It provides concrete use cases ('discover related context, find notes that might conflict, or build a broader picture of a topic'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 includes clear context for when to use this tool ('to discover related context, find notes that might conflict, or build a broader picture of a topic'), which implicitly distinguishes it from general search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as search_notes for keyword-based queries, leaving some room for improvement.

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