memory_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: reads from a specific path (~/.claude/projects/<slug>/*.jsonl), extracts compaction summaries, stores categorized chunks, and is idempotent. It also mentions deduplication and that nothing is lost across generations. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or permissions.

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 well-structured: a bold purpose statement, followed by mechanism, safety note, and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core function. While slightly verbose, it contains no redundant sentences. Could be tightened by merging the safety note with the mechanism paragraph.

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 tool with only 2 optional parameters, the description is thorough. It covers purpose, mechanics, idempotency, and parameter usage. An output schema exists, so return format is not required in description. No gaps evident for the complexity level.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explicitly documents both parameters: 'project' restricts to one slug (or scans all if omitted), 'session_path' ingests a single file instead of scanning. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 starts with a clear action: 'Capture Claude Code's OWN compaction summaries from disk into memory.' It explains the resource (compaction summaries from transcripts) and the verb (ingest/capture). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the 'primary write path' and describes a unique mechanism (reading .jsonl files) not shared by other memory tools like memory_store or memory_find.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool: it is safe to run repeatedly due to idempotency ('unchanged chunks re-map to the same id'). It explains parameter usage with clear instructions: omit 'project' to scan all, use 'session_path' for single file. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with alternatives like memory_store for direct storage.

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