memory_unlock

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: passphrase exposure, default disabled state, configuration requirement, keyfile need for two-factor vaults, and the resulting lock state. It also mentions how other tools behave while locked, offering comprehensive behavioral context.

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?

The description is organized into clear, purposeful sentences. The opening sentence states the action and effect, followed by important security caveats and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 a single parameter and no schema descriptions, the description provides all necessary operational context: security implications, configuration, prerequisites, and return behavior. With an output schema present and sibling tools enumerated, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains that `passphrase` is the vault's own passphrase, verbatim, and notes the keyfile requirement. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could have included a concrete example or mention of error cases.

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 clearly states the tool unlocks the vault for the session, enabling other memory tools. It distinguishes itself from its sibling memory_lock and explains the consequence of remaining locked, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides usage context: it is disabled by default, the command `compartment unlock` is preferred, and the tool should only be enabled with user consent for security reasons. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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