Memory Bank MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '记录实现细节' gives no indication of whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether notes are permanent or editable, or what happens after creation. For a tool that appears to create content (based on name and parameters), this is a critical gap in behavioral 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?

While technically concise (only 4 Chinese characters), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is too brief to be helpful - it doesn't front-load critical information and fails to communicate the tool's purpose effectively. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the result will be. Given the complexity of the tool (creating notes with project associations and task relationships) and the lack of structured metadata, the description fails to provide the necessary context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '记录实现细节' (Record implementation details) is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'implement_add_note' without specifying what kind of note is being added or to what system. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'creative_add_idea' or 'reflect_create' which also appear to create content items.

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 distinctions from similar tools like 'creative_add_idea' or 'reflect_create'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific note-adding tool is appropriate.

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