tick

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the mechanics (decay, tiering, archiving), which signals that stored memory is being mutated and some content may be demoted or archived. It does not state whether anything is deleted or irreversible, whether the operation is idempotent, or what running it twice in a row does — significant gaps for an un-annotated mutation 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?

Two short clauses: what it does, then when to call it. The mechanism parenthetical is front-loaded and the scheduling note follows, with no filler.

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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema maintenance job, the description covers purpose and cadence, which is the minimum an agent needs to invoke it. But with no annotations at all, it should say more about the consequences of the decay/archive pass — reversibility and whether memory is actually lost — since an agent calling this blind could materially affect stored state.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 metaphor '让遗忘走一步' is immediately grounded by the parenthetical '(衰减 + 分层 + 归档)', which names the three concrete operations. This distinguishes it from siblings like remember/recall, which are storage and retrieval rather than maintenance. It loses a point only because the primary verb is figurative and the actual effect on stored data has to be inferred from the parenthetical.

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 a cadence recommendation ('建议一天跑一次或按需调用'), which is real usage context rather than nothing. However, it never says when this should NOT be run, how it interacts with remember/recall, or what preconditions matter. The guidance is implied scheduling, not explicit decision criteria.

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