explain_memory

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

The description declares 'Read-only,' which is essential for behavior understanding. It explains what aspects are analyzed (retrieval path, freshness, etc.). Without annotations, the description carries the burden, and it adequately discloses that no modifications occur. However, it could mention that the tool does not alter memory state.

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 concise sentences: the first explains purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?

Given the 7 parameters and good schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, usage context, and read-only nature. It mentions what the explanation includes (retrieval path, freshness, etc.), but without an output schema, it does not detail the exact return format. Still, it is largely complete for an explainer tool.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it provides a high-level overview without elaborating on parameter interactions.

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: 'Explain why memories matched a query: retrieval path, freshness, scope, and matched terms.' The verb 'explain' and resource 'memories matched a query' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_memory by focusing on explanation rather than retrieval.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use when search results seem unexpected and you need to debug ranking or scope filtering.' This provides clear guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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