sleep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'read-only' and 'Nothing is changed', and details the types of findings (merge candidates, decay candidates, orphans). This provides strong transparency, though it omits potential performance implications or whether the analysis might be resource-intensive.

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 and efficient. It uses a metaphor, then lists concrete outputs, gives action guidance, and documents parameters. Each sentence earns its place; no wasted words. The length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 is complete for a read-only analysis tool with two optional parameters. It explains the purpose, behavior, outputs, and next steps. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The coverage of parameter semantics and usage guidelines makes it robust.

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 schema provides only titles and defaults, with no property descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining both parameters: 'project: Scope to a project (None = whole brain)' and 'min_similarity: Cosine threshold for merge candidates inside a community.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'walk the graph and PROPOSE housekeeping (read-only)'. It identifies the resource (the memory graph) and the action (proposing housekeeping candidates), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is read-only and that mutations are handled by merge_memories/flag_stale.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool and what to do with its results: 'Nothing is changed — you (or your agent) act with merge_memories / flag_stale.' It names the alternative tools and clarifies the workflow, making the usage context unambiguous.

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