memory_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it reports on 'privacy modes and mutation gating', which goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on what these modes mean or how the mutation gating is represented, so it adds limited detail beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('self-description') and immediately names the key inclusions. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's role, making it highly efficient.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the tool's purpose and key aspects (privacy modes, mutation gating), and the annotations cover read-only and idempotency. The only minor gap is that it does not indicate whether the output is a structured manifest or a free-text summary, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.

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%, and the single parameter 'privacy_mode' is fully documented in the schema with its enum values and explanations. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a self-description of the MCP, specifying it includes privacy modes and mutation gating. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that perform memory operations (get, set, search, etc.), so an agent can tell it apart. It is not a tautology and names concrete aspects, though it could be more explicit about the exact return format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is suitable for discovering capabilities or checking mutation restrictions, nor does it exclude any scenario. An agent must infer its purpose from the description alone, which is minimal.

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