Memory Bank MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('获取文档内容') without any information about permissions needed, rate limits, what format the content is returned in, whether this is a read-only operation, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a tool with no 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 ('获取文档内容'). While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring framework, conciseness is evaluated separately from completeness. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what this tool returns and how it behaves. The description is a simple statement of purpose without any information about return format, error conditions, or behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably returns document content, the lack of output information is a significant gap.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('projectId' and 'type') having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '获取文档内容' (Get document content) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_document' in Chinese. While it does specify a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('文档内容' - document content), it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_documents' or provide any specific scope or differentiation. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks the specificity needed for effective sibling differentiation.

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 when to use 'get_document' versus 'list_documents' (which appears to be a sibling tool), no prerequisites, and no context about appropriate use cases. The agent receives no help in selecting between these two document-related tools.

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