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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description explicitly states READ-ONLY mode, lists refused operations (session.*, memory.create/update), and discloses the underlying store path (/srv/whitemagic/hosted-store/lmdb). This gives agents concrete behavioral expectations.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: function, mode, scope, invocation modes, and enumeration command. It is front-loaded with the tool's role and immediately orients the agent.

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 the annotations, output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers all operational essentials: read-only behavior, routing modes, one-of constraint, and how to discover the tool surface. No critical context is missing.

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%, and the description adds meaning beyond it: thought is auto-routed via TF-IDF NLU, route is an exact tool id for direct dispatch, and args is a passthrough object. It also adds the one-of constraint, which the schema does not enforce.

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 identifies the tool as a meta-tool over the curated 69-tool surface and enumerates its functions: persistent memory, session continuity and recall, governance/audit, and local execution. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling concrete tools like memory.search or session.start, and the READ-ONLY mode further scopes it.

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?

It gives explicit invocation instructions: provide exactly one of thought or route, pass args as an object, and say 'list tools' to enumerate the surface. It does not explicitly state when not to use it relative to direct sibling tools, but the routing semantics make the intended usage clear.

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