crbro_maintenance

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

The description names the actions (prune, archive, rebuild) which imply mutation of internal state, but it does not explicitly warn about destructive consequences or mention that dry_run can preview changes. Without annotations, the description carries the burden, and it partially discloses behavior but omits safety context.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and uses a dash to efficiently enumerate the specific maintenance subtasks. Every word earns its place.

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?

While the description effectively covers what the tool does, it lacks information about the expected output (e.g., what does a successful run return?) and does not explain the implications of running without dry_run. Given the tool's potentially destructive nature, this incompleteness is notable.

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 schema already fully describes the 'dry_run' parameter with clear semantics ('only report what would happen without acting'). The description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly lists specific maintenance actions (recalculate heat, prune weak synapses, archive cold neurons, rebuild search index), which makes the tool's purpose concrete. However, the term 'brain maintenance' is somewhat generic, and with a sibling named 'consolidate', the differentiation isn't explicit.

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 no guidance on when to run maintenance versus using related tools like 'crbro_consolidate' or 'crbro_status'. There are no context cues, preconditions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate use case.

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