erinys_eval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, safety, and behavior. It does not state whether this is a read-only evaluation or if it mutates memory, nor does it describe what metrics are computed or how results are returned. The only behavioral hint is 'LOCOMO-inspired metrics', which is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with no redundant or filler text. It is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though that issue is more relevant to other dimensions.

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?

Despite the low complexity (one optional parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description lacks essential context: it does not explain when to use the tool, what 'memory quality' entails, or how the project parameter influences the evaluation. The description is too minimal to be considered complete.

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 has one optional 'project' parameter, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its purpose and effect entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific action ('self-evaluate') and target ('memory quality'), and adds context with 'LOCOMO-inspired metrics' to clarify the evaluation approach. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on evaluation rather than storage, retrieval, or manipulation. However, the term 'self-evaluate' is slightly ambiguous, potentially implying the tool evaluates itself rather than the memory system.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like erinys_stats or erinys_recall. The description implies it is for assessing memory quality but provides no situational context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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