rsi_memory

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints that reindex mutates a cache, but never says whether reindex is expensive, idempotent, or permission-gated, what index returns, or what happens with a malformed id. Only 'graph returns mermaid text' discloses output shape.

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 action-mode breakdown is front-loaded and useful, but the entire English sentence is then repeated verbatim in Chinese. That duplication roughly doubles length without adding information for a single-language reader, so a significant portion of the text does not earn 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a dispatcher spanning four behaviors, the description is thin: it does not describe index/read return formats, reindex cost or side effects, locale behavior, or failure modes. An agent can pick a mode but cannot predict consequences.

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%, so the schema already documents id (32-hex, for open), lang (zh/en), and the action enum. The description adds only the action-to-parameter link for open, while the lang override and its effect on returned text are never mentioned, so baseline 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 definition enumerates four concrete modes (index lists entries, open reads one id, reindex rebuilds cache, graph returns mermaid text), which is specific. However, the opening phrase 'Open or search memory files' promises a search capability that no action provides, and nothing distinguishes rsi_memory from siblings such as rsi_memory_health or rsi_recall.

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?

Each action is described in isolation ('index 列目录', 'open 按 id 读全文'), which hints at when to use each. But there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over rsi_recall, rsi_explore, or rsi_memory_health, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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