memory_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behaviors. It implies a read-only listing but does not explain the 'review-options' action or any potential side effects, leaving behavioral transparency low.

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 (one sentence) but critically incomplete, omitting the parameter and the alternative action. It prioritizes brevity over completeness.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the 'action' parameter and describe what the output contains. It does neither, leaving the tool inadequately specified.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'action' parameter at all. It provides no guidance on when to use each enum value ('list' vs 'review-options'), failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists attached AI sources and external review targets, using a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to mention the alternative 'review-options' action, leaving the full purpose slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like memory_search or memory_context. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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