RecallNest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly declares 'Read-only' (critical safety information) and lists the specific diagnostic operations performed. However, it omits what the tool returns or any performance characteristics.

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 with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the action and scope; second provides behavioral constraint (read-only) and usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool without output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, safety profile (read-only), and usage triggers. Could benefit from hints about return structure, but sufficient for tool selection given the simple interface.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage trivially. Per guidelines, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than non-existent parameters.

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 ('Run health checks') on the specific resource ('memory database') and enumerates exactly what gets checked (vector dimensions, orphans, tier distribution, conflict backlog). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling storage/retrieval tools like store_memory or search_memory.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when diagnosing data quality issues or before a consolidation run'). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the specific context provided effectively guides selection over similar diagnostic siblings like memory_stats.

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