memory_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions combining two functions and reviewing health, but does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, or error behavior. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for describing return values, but more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

Description is succinct with a summary line followed by a well-organized argument list. 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 low complexity (3 optional params) and an output schema, the description provides sufficient purpose and parameter details. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the combined nature. Minor gaps remain in behavioral aspects, but overall it is complete for its context.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema only provides type and default. The description adds clear explanations for all three parameters (hours, limit, include_errors), fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 reviews recent memory activity, errors, and system health, and that it combines audit_query and circuit_breaker_status. This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from similar siblings like memory_system_health and memory_health_check.

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 implies use when both audit and circuit breaker status are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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