mnemosyne_dream_bridges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that bridges are produced during offline/idle-time scans, depend on being 'enabled in Settings', contain a dbs score and raw cosine similarity, and can legitimately be empty. This is strong contextual transparency, though it stops short of explicitly addressing side effects or access requirements.

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 dense but not padded, and the core action is front-loaded. The 'offline (idle-time)' phrasing is repeated later with 'runs while the machine is idle', which is a minor redundancy. Overall, every sentence contributes meaningful context about purpose, output, usage, and edge behavior.

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?

For a list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the returned fields (bridge, dbs, raw cosine similarity, excerpts), explains when an empty result is expected, and gives concrete usage purposes. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret its result.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds useful conceptual meaning beyond the schema by explaining what a bridge is, that it links two chronicles possibly across vaults, and what dbs represents. This directly enriches min_dbs and chronicle_id even though limit and session_id are left to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the connections Mnemosyne's Dream State engine discovered between memories during its offline (idle-time) scans'. It clearly identifies what the tool returns, the underlying concept, and differentiates it from the sibling tools by focusing on dream-derived bridge associations rather than queries, ingestion, or position tracking.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'surface non-obvious associations', 'audit whether dreamed connections are insightful or noise', and 'seed creative exploration'. It also explains that an empty list is normal, which prevents misinterpretation. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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