Run Memory Maintenance

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional context about side effects or changes, but does not contradict annotations. With annotation coverage, the bar is lower; description is adequate but minimal.

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?

One sentence, no waste. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and output schema, it is too terse, omitting important detail. Conciseness is good but at the expense of informativeness.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description omits essential context: what dry_run does, where report_dir goes, and the nature of maintenance. Incomplete for guiding correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'daily or weekly' corresponding to the 'profile' parameter, but provides no explanation for 'dry_run' or 'report_dir'. Fails to fully document parameter meaning.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'maintenance profile', specifying it's opt-in with daily or weekly options. It distinguishes from siblings like 'memory.maintenance_status' by implying action, but could be more specific about what maintenance entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory.maintenance_status' or 'memory.doctor'. No conditions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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