mnemosyne_resonance_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and handles it thoroughly: it states the tool is read-only, writes nothing, has no active/paused filter, returns at most 30 candidates, and clarifies that an empty result means no resonances recorded rather than a failure. This is exemplary disclosure.

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?

Every sentence carries unique information: purpose, read-only guarantee, return fields, filtering limitations, empty-result meaning, and sibling routing. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it dense but efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description fully compensates by specifying the exact fields in each entry (id, last phase, minutes ago, chronicle id), the absence of filters, candidate limits, and empty-result semantics. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is an empty object. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for 0 params; the description does not need to explain parameters. It instead adds context about what each returned entry contains, which is helpful even though no parameter semantics are needed.

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 Resonances recorded in the default vault') and clarifies the read-only nature. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming mnemosyne_position_get and mnemosyne_position_update as the follow-up actions, making the tool's scope 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?

The description explicitly explains what this tool returns (all resonances, no filter, max 30 candidates) and when to use alternates: calling mnemosyne_position_get for full detail and mnemosyne_position_update to write. This gives clear routing versus siblings.

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