memory_profile

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses the one-hour cache reuse, that refresh forces recomputation, and that recomputation has side effects (persists the profile cache and an audit entry). It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate limits, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 purpose and contents, then return shape, caching semantics, side effects, and the sibling pointer. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the return-shape and cache sentences could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return payload (including the no_sessions failure shape), caching behavior, write side effects, parameter expectations, and the sibling alternative. An agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it stresses supplying the exact project identifier, explains that agentId preserves configured scope, and ties refresh to recomputation and cache persistence rather than just 'force rebuild'.

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 and resource ('Get a project overview') and enumerates exactly what the profile contains (top concepts/files, conventions, errors, recent activity) plus the 20-session window. It also names the sibling it is not (memory_patterns) so the agent can route without opening schemas.

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 clear context (use memory_patterns for recurring co-changes or errors) and explains when to pass refresh='true'. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or a full alternative map across the many sibling tools.

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