memory_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool runs cheap evidence checks and updates memory statuses, indicating a mutating action, but does not specify what statuses change, whether changes are reversible, or any permission requirements. The context about 'cheap' checks is useful but side effects remain under-described.

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 two well-structured sentences: the first states the action with specific evidence check names, and the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage context, and check types. It lacks details about return values and deeper side effects, but given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is fairly complete.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (ids and deep), with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal contextual value beyond the schema, mentioning verification by id but not adding detail about deep or other semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: re-run cheap evidence checks (STATIC_CHECK, COMMIT_REF) and update memory statuses. It names specific check types and the affected resource, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_search or memory_write by focusing on verification and status updates.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool: before relying on VERIFIED memories if the repo may have changed, or to verify specific memories by id. It provides clear usage context, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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