memory_review_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool 'previews items only and never deletes memory,' which is a strong, useful guarantee about side effects. It does not cover authorization, rate limits, or what 'actionable' entails, but the core preview-only behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately follows with the key safety qualifier. Every sentence earns 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?

The description covers the essential operation and non-destructive nature, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it does not clarify the parameter semantics or differentiate this tool from the many review-related siblings. For a tool with two undocumented optional parameters and a large sibling list, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides no explanation of the 'limit' or 'subject' parameters. The schema only supplies defaults (5 and 'user'), not meaning. The agent must guess what 'subject' refers to and how limit behaves, so the description adds no value here.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Show a small actionable inbox for pending memory review.' This is specific enough to communicate the core function, and the 'previews items only' phrase further clarifies its non-destructive role. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but the purpose is not 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?

The description implies this tool is for viewing pending memory review items, and 'previews items only' suggests it is not for applying changes. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or reference to alternatives like memory_review_apply or memory_review_digest. Usage context is present but mostly left to inference.

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