due_for_consolidation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the queue is oldest-first and that items not promoted remain recallable, reassuring about state preservation. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether calling it has any side effects, or how pagination works. It adds some context but leaves the safety profile implicit.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, then usage guidance, then a suggested flow. It's a bit longer than minimal but every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No fluff.

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 tool has an output schema, so return structure is covered. However, the parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and there's no mention of potential side effects or error conditions. For a query tool with two optional parameters, the description should at least hint at what 'days' and 'limit' do. Incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions neither 'days' nor 'limit' nor their meaning. The agent is left to guess what 'days' controls (likely a time window for consolidation) and what 'limit' does (max results). This is a significant gap.

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 defines the tool as a consolidation queue listing working-tier memories not yet promoted, oldest-first. It distinguishes itself from siblings like promote and recall by focusing on the queue of candidates for promotion, and contrasts with in-conversation judgment.

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?

Explicitly says to call at session end or start, and gives a suggested flow: recall the queue, evaluate, promote durable ones, and let the rest stay. It also contrasts with relying on in-conversation judgment, which is measurably unreliable. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates from ad-hoc memory management.

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