memory_explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says nothing about side effects, return values, permissions, or any operational detail beyond the name itself. The tool is completely opaque.

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 extremely short, but this is not effective conciseness—it is under-specification. It restates the tool name without adding any valuable information, similar to the low-rated 'Process' example.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description alone must explain the tool's purpose and behavior. It fails to do so, offering only a tautological phrase. Even with zero parameters, the tool's function remains completely unclear.

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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 is merely 'memory explain', which is a direct restatement of the tool name. It lacks a verb and resource, providing no indication of what the tool actually does or how it differs from siblings like memory_search or memory_health.

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 gives zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selection.

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