get_low_confidence_mementos

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behaviors: default threshold < 0.3, sorting order (lowest first), returns relationships (not just mementos), includes last access time. Missing only minor details like rate limits or pagination.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose statement followed by organized bullet lists (Use for/Features/Returns). Every section adds value. Slightly verbose format compared to ultra-concise single-sentence descriptions, but appropriate given lack of output schema requiring behavioral description.

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?

Compensates effectively for missing output schema by detailing return structure (relationships with associated memories, confidence scores, access times). Two simple optional parameters with complete schema coverage. No annotations but description adequately covers read-only safety.

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 has 100% description coverage (threshold and limit documented), establishing baseline 3. Description reinforces threshold semantics (filtering behavior, default < 0.3) but does not add syntax details, validation nuances, or usage guidance beyond schema documentation.

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?

Opens with specific verb+resource: 'Find memories with low confidence scores.' Clearly distinguishes from sibling confidence tools (adjust, boost, apply decay) by focusing on retrieval/querying rather than mutation. Scope is precisely defined by the confidence threshold concept.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use for:' section with 4 concrete scenarios (obsolete knowledge identification, cleanup, QA, review needs). Offers clear context for invocation. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives (e.g., vs search_mementos), preventing a 5.

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