get_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses sorting behavior ('by importance and recency') but doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, how empty results are handled, or query semantics beyond the schema. It adds some behavioral detail, but not comprehensive.

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 the core action, then enumerating key filters. No fluff or repetition; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 query tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what it queries, what filters are available, and result ordering. It doesn't describe return format, but that's less critical given the tool's nature. It's slightly incomplete on matching semantics, but overall well-rounded.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a summary of filter categories (content, type, tags, workflow, file path) but doesn't explain parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, such as 'any tag' matching or default limit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and identifies a clear resource ('the knowledge graph' for 'relevant memories'). It lists distinct filtering dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling context-management tools like save_context and get_context_health.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to search memories by content and apply filters (type, tags, workflow, file path). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's read-oriented purpose is evident alongside sibling tools that save/restore context or manage worktrees.

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