query_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'search' using 'semantic similarity', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single sentence: 'Search memories using semantic similarity.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and method.

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 moderate complexity (semantic search), lack of annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but for a search operation with undefined parameters, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description doesn't compensate by explaining parameters like 'content' (query text) or 'k' (number of results), leaving their semantics unclear. It mentions 'semantic similarity' but doesn't clarify how the 'content' parameter is used in that context or what 'k' defaults to, failing to add value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Search memories using semantic similarity.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('memories'), and method ('semantic similarity'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_memories' or 'search_files', which might offer alternative search methods or scopes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_memories' (which might list all memories without search) or 'search_files' (which searches a different resource), nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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