mnemosyne_dream_bridges

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the 'List' framing matches — no contradiction. Beyond the annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: an empty result is a normal state rather than an error, and data only exists if the idle-time engine has run and the user enabled it in Settings. This helps the agent avoid misinterpreting empty responses or retrying unnecessarily.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: what the tool lists, what a bridge contains, when to use it, and what empty/normal behavior looks like. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or redundancy with the structured fields.

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 here, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so adequately (score, cosine similarity, excerpts of both sides). It also covers data availability and empty-result semantics. The only notable gap is not differentiating the tool from the similarly named mnemosyne_resonance_list sibling, which an agent would benefit from knowing about.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters (limit with default/cap, min_dbs range, session_id, chronicle_id). Per the baseline rule, the description need not repeat them; it adds indirect value by explaining what a bridge contains, which clarifies the meaning of min_dbs, but provides no parameter-specific guidance beyond 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 the Dream State engine found between memories while the machine was idle.' It further defines what a bridge is (two memories with a Dream Bridge Score, raw cosine similarity, and excerpts), which disambiguates it from siblings like mnemosyne_resonance_list by attributing the data to the idle-time Dream State engine.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'surface associations the memory made on its own, to audit whether they are insightful or noise, or to seed creative exploration.' It also sets the expectation that an empty list is normal and explains the data depends on the user enabling the engine in Settings. However, it never names the closely related sibling mnemosyne_resonance_list or states when that alternative should be preferred, so exclusions are missing.

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