also_domain

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the additive (non-moving) effect, that every read scoped to the domain will return the memory, that duplicate/redundant paths are dropped, and the shape of the response. It omits auth requirements and failure modes, but the core behavioral semantics are unusually well covered.

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?

Front-loads the core action in sentence one, which is good, but the middle paragraph leans on metaphor ('cuts across the tree', 'the echo is what actually holds') that adds ambiguity rather than precision for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the return object (`uid`, `also`). Behavior, usage, and result shape are all covered; only parameter-level detail for `uid` is thin.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys the meaning of `domain` (a path, subject to redundancy dedup) but says nothing about `uid` beyond the response echo, so one of two parameters stays undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Cross-list') and resource ('an existing memory') plus the target ('one more domain path'), and contrasts against a sibling behavior by saying 'without moving it -- use the dashboard's re-home for that.' This distinguishes it from move_to_project/unfile_domain, though it does not name them directly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering scenario: a memory was filed where it lives and later turns out to belong to a cross-cutting subject. It also implicitly sets the boundary that the memory is not relocated. No explicit 'do not use when' or named alternative sibling, so not a 5.

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