Deduplicate Memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool ('Automatically resolves redundant memories'), requires LLM configuration, and has a fallback mode. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'resolves' entails (e.g., deletion, merging).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by configuration requirements and fallback behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with LLM dependency) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action, configuration needs, and fallback, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with siblings like 'memorix_consolidate'.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'query' scope or 'dryRun' implications in more detail.

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The description clearly states the specific action ('Scan active memories for duplicates, contradictions, and outdated information using LLM analysis') and resource ('memories'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'memorix_consolidate' or 'memorix_resolve' by emphasizing automated resolution of redundant memories through LLM analysis.

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 description provides clear context on when to use this tool (for deduplicating memories with LLM analysis) and mentions fallback behavior (basic similarity-based consolidation without LLM). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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