memory_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and it covers key behaviors: fallback to the record's opening sentence, budget_tokens shortening lines, never dropping records, exceeding rather than silently meeting an insufficient budget, and records without lines being effectively unfindable. It leaves the output shape vague (what `limits` contains) and never explicitly states the operation is read-only.

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 front-loaded with the core concept and structured in readable paragraphs, but the benchmark paragraph and repeated quantitative results are not needed to invoke the tool correctly. It is more verbose and discursive than necessary, and phrases like 'term-stuffing is a null on both registers' add conceptual color rather than direct usage guidance.

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?

It covers the main call semantics and failure modes well for a one-parameter tool, and the workflow with set_index_line is a useful addition. However, there is no output schema, the description never defines the exact return shape or the meaning/structure of `limits`, and it references `needs_line` as a step without that tool appearing in the sibling list, leaving an agent uncertain about the full workflow.

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 explain that budget_tokens shortens lines to fit and that an inadequate budget is reported as exceeded rather than silently met. However, it does not clarify what the default value 0 means, what units are expected, or what valid ranges look like, so an agent still has meaningful ambiguity about the parameter.

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 identifies memory_index as the always-loaded index used to decide which records to open from one-line summaries, and states that without written index lines it returns a fallback opening sentence. It is clear about the resource and operation, though it never uses a direct verb like 'returns the index lines' and leans on conceptual framing rather than a plain API statement.

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?

It gives concrete workflow guidance: use needs_line to find records needing lines, write conclusion sentences, store them via set_index_line, and call memory_index to read the budgeted index. It does not explicitly compare against recall/get or list when-not conditions, but the context of using an index for large stores is clear.

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