mnemostack_answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It states 'Read-only, no side effects, no authentication required,' and thoroughly describes return fields including the 'notes' routine signals, 'degraded' field behavior, and null token_used cases. It also discloses the default hiding of stale facts, which is a behavioral trait beyond what the schema conveys.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and usage, followed by a detailed return-value specification. It is long but every sentence carries substantive information; the use of parentheses and semicolons keeps it structured. Not as concise as the ideal two-sentence example, but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is comprehensive: it explains the tool's purpose, usage context, return schema, safety profile, and edge cases (e.g., stale facts, degraded flags, token reporting). Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, this description covers all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by referencing 'same contract as mnemostack_search' for as_of and token_budget, clarifying filter behavior, and noting the default for include_invalidated. These cross-tool and behavioral details go beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 answers a question using retrieved memories and distinguishes it from mnemostack_search by producing a synthesized answer rather than raw matches. The verb 'answer' plus the resource ('retrieved memories') is specific, and the explicit mention of the sibling tool clarifies the differentiation.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you want a concise factual answer synthesized from memory search results instead of the raw matches returned by mnemostack_search.' It also notes when to use include_invalidated or as_of to see stale facts, providing clear context for this tool over alternatives.

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