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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the scope of content pulled in (ground truths, matching artifacts, open quests), which implies a read-only aggregation, but says nothing about permissions, cost/token budget, or whether anything is persisted — notable gaps for a memory-spanning tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an efficient colon-delimited list of the three sources. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the title or name.

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?

The output schema exists and covers return values, so the description needn't explain results. However, with no annotations and an undocumented required 'task' parameter, the definition leaves the agent short of what it needs to invoke the tool confidently.

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 only 50%: 'workspace' is documented in the schema, but 'task' — the sole required parameter — has no description anywhere. The prose does not compensate by explaining what a 'task' string should contain (a prompt, an id, a query), leaving the primary input under-specified.

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 gives a specific verb ('Assemble') and a concrete resource ('task brief from this account's memory'), then names the three content categories it aggregates (ground truths, artifacts, open quests). An agent can distinguish it from raw siblings like wyrm_search or wyrm_recall, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as wyrm_search, wyrm_recall, or wyrm_session_prime. The agent must infer from the name that this is the aggregation entry point rather than a primitive lookup.

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