mnemosyne_resonances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation and states the returned fields (name, status, last position, last activity), which gives an agent some idea of the output. But it leaves ambiguity around whether the list includes only active or all resonances, and does not mention pagination, error cases, or any side effects.

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 three sentences with no fluff: the first sentence states the action and resource, the second lists the returned attributes, and the third gives the use case. It is front-loaded and 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description alone must be enough for an agent to know exactly what the call returns. It names the fields, but the ambiguous wording of 'active' means the boundary of the returned set is unclear. Also, many sibling tools revolve around resonance position and querying, so a more explicit statement of how this list tool relates to them would substantially improve completeness.

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 there is nothing for the schema or the description to elaborate. The description focuses on the output rather than parameter meanings, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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?

States the specific action 'List' and resource 'Resonances' and explains what they are (cognitive workspaces). It also lists the returned fields. However, 'active' is ambiguous—whether the tool only lists active resonances or all resonance entries with an active/paused status—and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like mnemosyne_query or mnemosyne_get_position.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to understand what projects are currently active and where each one stands.' This provides clear context for when to call it, though it does not mention when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling tool.

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