memory_loading

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it lists actions like load_adrs and create_snapshot, it does not clarify side effects, whether queries are read-only, or any authorization or rate-limiting considerations. This leaves agents unaware of potential write operations and safety implications.

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 extremely concise with three sentences that front-load the core purpose and capabilities. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff, achieving high efficiency.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects, enums, no output schema), the description is too brief. It fails to explain return formats, pagination behavior, or how results are structured, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly interpret outputs.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add meaning. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond what is in the schema, which is acceptable but provides no extra value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 load ADRs, query entities, and manage memory entities/relationships. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_knowledge_graph or expand_memory by being a central multi-action tool, but could be more explicit about when to use it over siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like expand_memory or get_knowledge_graph. The description does not include when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions, which is a significant gap for a tool with many sibling tools.

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