Memory Retention Status & Archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the archive action is described as 'reversible', and it explains the underlying mechanism ('exponential decay scoring based on importance, age, and access patterns'). However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first establishes the dual-purpose nature, the second explains the actions and scoring mechanism. Every phrase adds value with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and how it works. However, it doesn't describe the output format for either action, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. The explanation of the scoring algorithm adds useful completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining what each action does ('show active/stale/archive-candidate counts' for report, 'move expired observations to archive file' for archive) and providing context about default behavior. The schema only documents the enum values, while the description explains their semantic meaning.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('show memory retention status' and 'archive expired memories') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on retention management rather than consolidation, search, or other memory operations. It explicitly defines two distinct actions the tool performs.

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 for when to use each action ('report' for status viewing, 'archive' for moving expired memories), but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools like memorix_consolidate or memorix_deduplicate. It differentiates between the two modes within the tool but lacks sibling comparison guidance.

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