Memory Check Duplicate

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining the use of embedding cosine similarity and configurable threshold, and that it returns the matching entry. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though performance or side effects are not discussed.

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 purpose. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds critical information. Structured for quick comprehension.

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 existence of output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return format in detail, but it does mention returning the matching entry. However, it omits scoping parameters and default behavior when no duplicate is found, leaving the description somewhat incomplete. Adequate but not thorough.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions 'content' implicitly and 'threshold', but fails to describe 'nest', 'branch', 'project_path', or 'response_format'. With six parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's usage.

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's purpose: checking semantic duplicates using embedding cosine similarity. It distinguishes itself from sibling memory tools (e.g., memory_store, memory_recall) by being specifically a duplicate check operation, and provides the method and default threshold.

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 a use case (checking before storing a memory) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like memory_recall or memory_find. 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.