celiums-memory

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 and does so effectively. It describes the hybrid search mechanism (full-text + semantic), ranking behavior (by relevance), and return format (top N matches), which goes beyond basic functionality to explain how the tool operates.

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 with core functionality, then provides usage guidance, behavioral details, and examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value without redundancy. The information density is high with zero 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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, usage, and behavior. It could be more complete by describing the exact structure of returned results (beyond just mentioning titles, descriptions, and categories) or error conditions, but it's substantially complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'natural language query' and 'top N matches' which are already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search', 'Returns') and resources ('500,000+ expert knowledge modules'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on knowledge retrieval rather than network mapping or memory functions. It explicitly mentions what the tool does and what it returns.

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 context on when to use this tool ('when the user needs technical guidance, best practices, or domain expertise'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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