memkernel_query_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: ephemeral tool-execution logs and scratchpad notes are excluded by default and only surfaced on opt-in. 'Return' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It still omits permissions, cost, and whether the snapshot is consistent, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one opt-in behavior. The enumeration is dense but every listed category earns its place by telling the agent what the payload contains.

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 parameterless-required, read-only query with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it signals the payload shape and the ephemeral flag's effect. It would be complete with brief routing guidance against sibling tools and a note on branch_id.

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%, so the description must compensate for two parameters. It explains include_ephemeral well ('raw tool-execution logs and scratchpad notes not yet compacted'), but says nothing about branch_id beyond the schema's default of 'main'. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('consolidated memory of a branch'), then enumerates the categories returned (tasks, decisions, workspace facts, blockers, leases, events), which is unusually concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as memkernel_history or memkernel_diff_branches, so an agent must still infer which read tool fits.

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 second sentence gives a clear conditional for one parameter ('Set include_ephemeral=true to also see...'), which is genuine usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the many sibling read/query tools, so usage is only implied.

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