dream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses side effects: 'may archive low-value entries and generate new insight memories.' It also signals the mutating nature of the operation through 'prune' and 'consolidate,' which is important behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 compact: one sentence defines the operation, one sentence covers side effects and when to use it. Every sentence earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded rather than buried in a long explanation.

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 memory-maintenance tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: operation, workflow phases, side effects, and usage trigger. It could be more comprehensive by naming related maintenance tools or stating output/return value expectations, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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%, and the parameter descriptions already document force, scope, and familyMatch well. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema carries the load, but the description itself contributes no beyond-schema value for 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a full memory consolidation cycle' with named phases (Orient, Gather, Consolidate, Prune). It clearly describes what the tool does without relying on the name alone, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related sibling tools like distill_memory or memory_lint.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use when memory count is high and you need periodic maintenance.' This gives the agent actionable context for when to choose this tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative lighter-weight maintenance tools such as distill_memory.

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