Memory Autopilot Project Context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions 'Schedules Code Memory refresh when needed' which hints at a side effect, and lists included elements. However, it doesn't clarify whether the tool modifies anything persistent, whether it reads from disk, or what side effects scheduling refresh has. The output format is partially covered by the format parameter, but the description lacks depth on internal behavior.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose and contents, the second gives explicit usage timing. No filler, 100% relevant information, and front-loaded with purpose.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main intended use and when to apply it. It lacks nuance about return values or potential edge cases, but given the format parameter and simple nature, it is quite complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'current coding task' but doesn't elaborate on the 'task' parameter semantics. It does not describe 'agent', 'limit', 'refresh', or 'format' beyond what is in the schema, so it neither enhances nor detracts.

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 tool's function: building a compact Memory Autopilot brief for the current coding task. It specifies actions (schedules refresh), content (Start here files, reliable memories, cautions), and differentiates from sibling tools like memorix_search or memorix_store by focusing on task-specific context briefs.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this at the start of a new coding turn or after switching tasks,' which provides clear context for when to invoke. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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