Memory Bank MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a list operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 at just four Chinese characters. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the dimension of conciseness alone, it's maximally brief with zero wasted words. Every character serves the core purpose statement.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'ideas' are in this context, what the return format looks like, whether this is a filtered view or complete list, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on this description.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (projectId and tag). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid projectId, what tags might be available, or how the filtering works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 '获取创意列表' (Get creative list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'creative_get_ideas' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what kind of ideas, from where, or with what scope. While it includes a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('创意列表' - creative list), it lacks specificity and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'creative_add_idea' or 'creative_update_design'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools like 'creative_add_idea' or filtering through other list tools might be more suitable. The agent receives zero usage direction beyond the tool name itself.

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