memory_eco

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the Oja's-rule importance effect and the retrievability semantics of the gate, plus that 'pending' withholds memories from search because they came from untrusted text. It omits permissions, persistence/reversibility guarantees, and response shape, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the alias and primary purpose before the gate explanation. Dense but largely earning its place; the bracketed alias and repeated comma-clauses add minor friction.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and gate behavior adequately and explains the important allow_secret-style nuance indirectly. Some parameter-level detail (entity_name, output format) is left to the schema, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter richly (including enum meanings for kind/action). The description adds conceptual framing for 'kind' spanning observations, episodes, and errors but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verbs and resources: RLHF-style feedback (positive/negative/correct) and a quarantine gate (promote/quarantine/pending). The bracketed '[alias of cuba_eco]' distinguishes it from that sibling explicitly. It stops just short of a crisp one-line statement, folding two capabilities into a dense paragraph.

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?

It explains what each action does conditionally (positive boosts, negative decreases, correct updates, promote makes retrievable, quarantine withdraws), which implies when to pick each. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and never routes to an alternative tool among the many siblings.

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