memory_review_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the output format (Markdown) and the major content categories. It does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only, but 'Return a ... digest' strongly implies a non-mutating operation, which is reasonable disclosure for this kind of tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the output format and all major digest components efficiently, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 high-level purpose is clear and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, the two optional parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and with dozens of sibling memory tools, some routing guidance would improve completeness.

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 never mentions the 'limit' or 'subject' parameters. While the names and defaults suggest an optional count and a scope, the description does not clarify how 'subject' filters the digest or exactly what 'limit' limits, leaving meaning mostly to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a Markdown memory review digest'. It then enumerates the digest's components, which clearly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like memory_list or memory_conflicts.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_review_inbox, memory_health, or memory_conflicts. The need for a combined digest is implied by the name and content, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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