memory_patterns

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses the 'without an LLM' mechanism, threshold rules (file pairs ≥3 sessions, error titles ≥2 occurrences), the cap of 20 frequency-ranked results, and scope limits (visible, non-archived). It doesn't cover performance/latency or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then thresholds, then return shape, then routing guidance. Dense but each sentence carries information; only minor compression is possible.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still explains the return shape (up to 20 ranked patterns with type, description, files, frequency, source session IDs), the thresholds, and the scoping rules. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies that omitting project or using '*' covers all projects and that agentId preserves the configured read scope. This adds interpretation beyond the schema's raw field descriptions.

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+resource: 'Detect repeated file co-changes and error titles in visible, non-archived session observations.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming memory_profile and memory_reflect as different capabilities, 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives ('Use memory_profile for a project overview or memory_reflect to create synthesized insights') and states the detection thresholds that gate results. It gives clear context but doesn't spell out explicit when-not conditions for this tool beyond the sibling alternatives.

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