Agent Memory Bridge

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses behavioral traits: returns 'recent' items (temporal ordering), performs namespace 'inspection', and can 'confirm that signals are flowing' (specific health-check behavior). Could be improved by explicitly stating read-only nature given mutation siblings exist.

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?

Three tightly-constructed sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose (when to use), followed by mechanism (filters), then concrete examples (memory, domain, signals).

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 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage and existence of output schema, description appropriately focuses on conceptual model (filter-based browsing vs search) rather than repeating structural details. Adequate for agent selection, though could briefly acknowledge read-only safety given the presence of mutation siblings like 'forget' and 'store'.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds semantic value by mapping parameters to concepts: 'namespace' inspection, 'domain bucket' (domain param), 'memory' vs 'signal' (kind param), and keeping output 'readable' (limit param). Elevates above baseline by explaining what the filters represent.

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?

Excellent specific verb ('Browse') + resource ('recent items') combo. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'recall' ('before writing a more specific recall query') and implies distinction from text-based search ('when you do not yet know what to search for').

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?

Clear when-to-use ('when you do not yet know what to search for') and explicit alternative named ('recall'). Also clarifies the filter-based approach ('inspect a namespace by filters alone') vs. text queries.

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