万忆睡眠巩固

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose core effects: memory decay, importance boosting, similar merging, and low-value archiving. It does not clarify whether the decay or archiving is destructive, reversible, or requires user confirmation, which is material for a maintenance operation.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the four component operations are listed clearly. Every part earns its place.

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 no-parameter batch operation, the description covers the main effect set but leaves ambiguity about side effects, reversibility, and how results are surfaced. Since there are no annotations or output schema, a bit more operational detail would make it fully actionable.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively covers invocation requirements, which warrants the baseline score of 4. The description adds useful context about what the no-argument operation actually does.

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 a specific batch operation (sleep consolidation) and enumerates its four sub-behaviors: memory decay, importance enhancement, similar merging, and low-value archiving. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 万忆知识压缩 or 万忆记忆自检.

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?

The phrase '定期运行' indicates that the tool is intended for periodic scheduled maintenance rather than immediate on-demand use. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name any alternative tool to prefer in other situations.

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