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 comprehensively. It describes the hybrid retrieval mechanism (vector similarity + full-text + emotional resonance), SAR filtering, ranking criteria (relevance, recency, emotional resonance), return format (content, type, importance, relevance score), and default scoping behavior. This provides rich behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 with the core functionality in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable information about usage, behavior, and return format. While efficient, the behavioral details could be slightly more streamlined for optimal conciseness.

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 complexity (hybrid retrieval with multiple ranking factors) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description does an excellent job covering behavior, usage, and return format. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus sibling alternatives, which would make it fully complete for this context.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions default scoping behavior ('searches current project + global memories by default') which adds some context for the projectId parameter, but doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 persistent memory', 'retrieve previously stored facts') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique hybrid retrieval approach (vector similarity + full-text + emotional resonance). It explicitly identifies what resources it operates on (memories with content, type, importance, relevance score).

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 for when to use this tool ('to retrieve previously stored facts, decisions, preferences, or context') and mentions default behavior (searches current project + global memories). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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