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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world scope, and the description's trailing 'Read-only' merely restates that. The real added value is the return-content taxonomy: 'watched' versus 'remembered only' distinguishes promises that have enforcement from those that do not, which is genuine semantic context 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?

Three tightly packed sentences that front-load what the tool returns before clarifying the two promise states. It is dense but each clause carries information; the category explanation earns its space by substituting for a missing output schema.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fills the main gap by explaining the two promise categories and their meaning. It stops short of telling the agent when to reach for this versus remember_promise, but covers what an agent needs to interpret results.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 resource (the project's recorded developer promises) and its persisting scope across sessions, which is specific and legible. It lacks an explicit action verb and never names the sibling boosthis_remember_promise, so the read-vs-write distinction relies on the name and the trailing 'Read-only' rather than explicit 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?

There is no guidance on when to consult this tool versus alternatives, nor any pointer to boosthis_remember_promise for recording new promises. Usage is only implied by the noun-phrase framing.

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