research_memory

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses return components (hypothesis, verification score, methodology risk, derived lessons) and notes automatic recording. While it doesn't cover every behavioral aspect, it provides sufficient transparency for a read-only memory recall.

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?

Description is concise and to the point, with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return content, and benefit.

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 simplicity (2 params, read-only, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and why to use it. It is complete and informative.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'k' as 'up to k past episodes' and 'topic' as relevance filter. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default, though a brief note on topic format could elevate it.

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?

Description clearly states it recalls past research sessions relevant to a topic. It specifies the verb 'recall' and the resource 'Aurelius research sessions', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like autonomous_research or web_search by focusing on episodic memory.

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?

Description implies using this tool before starting new research to leverage past learnings. It explains the benefit ('build on successes and avoid repeating failures') but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, which is acceptable given the context.

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