memory_entities

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List known entities' and 'returns entities with their observation counts'. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects, providing minimal 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 (two sentences), with the purpose in the first sentence and return info in the second. No waste, front-loaded.

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 has 5 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the entity_type or scope enums, default behaviors, or how this differs from similar tools like memory_recall. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 60%, but the tool description adds no parameter explanations. The description's mention of 'people, projects, organizations' hints at entity_type enum values but does not clarify the enum or other parameters like scope, query, etc. Thus it adds little value beyond the 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 lists known entities with optional filtering, and specifies what entities are (people, projects, etc.). The verb 'list' and resource 'entities' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on entity listing rather than observations or audits.

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 implies usage for listing entities with optional filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like memory_recall or memory_audit. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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