memory_lint

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

The description declares the tool is 'read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also describes output format (health score 0-100 and actionable findings). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers the main behavioral aspects adequately.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states the action, second notes read-only and output, third gives usage advice. No redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers what it does, output format, and usage context. It could mention performance considerations for large memory, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 has descriptions for both parameters (scope and verbose) with 100% coverage. The main description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient. Thus, a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: running memory quality lint checks (contradictions, duplicates, stale entries, orphans). It distinguishes this from sibling tools (e.g., store_memory, search_memory) by focusing on analysis rather than storage or 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 recommends use for 'periodic memory hygiene or before consolidation,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage advice is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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