dream_ingest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses automatic chunking, vector embeddings, and permanent storage, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or idempotency. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences: first declares core action, second provides usage context. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, description covers main purpose and chunking behavior. It could elaborate on chunk size or storage interaction, but schema handles param details. Adequate for the complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so description adds context about chunking behavior (e.g., 'automatically split into semantically coherent chunks'). This complements the schema but does not deeply explain all parameters. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it ingests a Hermes digest into long-term memory with chunking and embeddings. It provides usage examples like scheduled reports and daily digests, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like memory_ingest or insert_memory.

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?

The description offers usage context ('scheduled reports, daily digests, or any structured summary content'), but lacks guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use.

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