memory_diagnose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the read-only nature (no repairs applied), the return shape {success,checks,summary} with pass/warn/fail and fixable counts, and the tolerance rule for unknown category names. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields here.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with output shape and the non-repair guarantee; every clause adds information. The middle category enumeration is list-heavy but justified since the schema does not enumerate valid values.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return object and status semantics. Combined with the read-only declaration, sibling routing, and category handling, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and the schema already says "Comma-separated categories to check (default all)." The description adds genuine extra meaning: unknown names are silently ignored and the covered category set is enumerated, which goes beyond the schema's wording.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Inspect current subsystem consistency") with an explicit enumeration of what is checked. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming memory_heal and memory_audit and stating how each differs, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 an explicit exclusion ("Does not apply repairs") plus the follow-up workflow ("Review the findings before using memory_heal") and a named alternative for a different use case ("use memory_audit for historical operations"). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative statement.

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