memory_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the safety disclosure by stating 'Read-only.' It also discloses the high-level behavior (runs lint checks, returns a health score and actionable findings). This is adequate for a non-destructive tool, though it could detail whether findings are summaries or individual entries (the verbose parameter hints at this).

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 sentences, front-loads the action and purpose, and provides value in every clause. No padding or redundant restatement of the tool name. It earns perfect marks for conciseness.

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 description is complete for a simple read-only tool with no output schema: it states the return value (health score 0-100 and actionable findings) and outlines its primary use cases. It does not overspecify but covers the essentials needed for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (scope as an optional filter, verbose as a boolean toggling individual findings). The description does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'memory quality lint checks', then enumerates the exact checks (contradictions, duplicates, stale entries, orphans). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_stats (stats) and data_checkup (data integrity), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context: 'Use for periodic memory hygiene or before consolidation.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a focused linting tool.

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