m3_help_capabilities

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 doesn't mention any side effects, whether it's a read-only operation, any required authentication, or what happens when no filters are applied. It doesn't describe the output format or any limitations. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap. However, it doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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, with two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose (discover capabilities) and then adds filtering options. Every sentence earns its place. The only minor issue is that it could be more explicit about the parameters, but overall it's well-structured and succinct.

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 5 parameters but zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the high-level purpose but leaves out critical details like how to use 'query' and 'domain' together, what 'database' refers to, and what 'as_records' does. For a discovery tool that an agent might use to understand other tools, this is a moderate gap. The complexity is moderate, but the description could do more to fill the schema void.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. The description mentions 'query' and 'domain' indirectly (filtering by domain or keywords) and implies 'as_records' might affect output, but it doesn't explain 'timeout', 'database', or the exact format for 'query' and 'domain'. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity, especially for a tool with 5 parameters and zero schema documentation.

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 discover m3-memory tool capabilities, parameters, and availability. It specifies the resource (m3-memory tools) and the actions (discover, filter). It distinguishes itself by mentioning filtering by domain or keyword search, which differentiates it from siblings like tools_list_domains or memory_search. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from all siblings, so it's not 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 clear usage context: it's for discovering tool capabilities and availability, with options to filter by domain or search by keywords. It implies when to use this tool (when needing to understand m3-memory tools), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since it's a metadata/discovery tool, the context is clear enough, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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