query_memory

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the 5000-row cap, that a missing LIMIT gets the cap injected, that an oversized LIMIT is refused rather than truncated, and that the limit argument replaces an inline LIMIT instead of combining with it. These are exactly the runtime behaviors an agent must know to avoid failed or surprising queries.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by constraints in decreasing order of importance, with zero filler. Every sentence conveys a distinct rule the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the query syntax, command restrictions, and limit interactions are all covered. The only gap is the absence of guidance on choosing this tool over the sibling read tools for a given retrieval need.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it defines the query parameter through a concrete MindQL example and fully specifies the limit parameter's override semantics and ceiling. The distinction between the argument and an inline LIMIT is not inferable from the schema and prevents real errors.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: it runs a structured MindQL FIND query over stored memory, and it illustrates the query format with a concrete example. The MindQL framing effectively separates it from keyword search or plain listing, though no sibling tool is named explicitly.

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?

Provides strong when-not guidance: only FIND is supported, only against thoughts, edges, or actions, and FIND embeddings is refused with a stated reason. It does not route the agent between this and sibling read tools such as search_memory or list_memory, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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