mem_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the update parameter writes status back to disk, defines all three statuses (fresh, stale, anchorless), and explains the meanings of stale and anchorless. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, USE WHEN, PARAMETERS, RETURNS. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description defines the exact return shape and all possible statuses. It covers both optional parameters, the automatic sync context, and the edge case of anchorless memories. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions. The description adds the key default that omitting id checks all memories, which is not in the schema. The update parameter is restated but adds no new meaning, so the added value is modest.

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: 'Check whether memory anchor paths and symbols still exist in the current code.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like mem_get or mem_search, which retrieve memory content rather than validate existence.

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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN scenarios: 'after a refactor' or 'to check all memories for staleness.' It also mentions that hivelore sync handles this automatically, giving context for when the tool might not be needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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