memory_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: result counts are capped, bodies are clipped rather than complete, and results span the given scope plus global. That clipping/cap behavior is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Two tight sentences: the use-case framing and result composition come first, followed by the clipping caveat and the alternative tool. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical count list, while informative, makes the sentence dense.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure need not be explained, yet the description still usefully previews contents and limits. For a one-parameter, non-destructive aggregation tool, the only real gap is the default/null scope behavior.

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 single scope parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that results include the given scope plus global memory, which is real added meaning, but it never explains what happens when scope is null (the default) or what a valid scope value looks like.

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 specifies exactly what the tool returns (top preferences up to 8, procedures 6, strongest facts 5, recent episodes 3) and routes to the sibling memory_get for full bodies, so it is distinguishable from other memory tools. It lacks an explicit verb ("retrieve"/"summarize"), framing the purpose as contents rather than an action, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

"What to know before starting work" gives a clear situational context, and it explicitly names the alternative memory_get with the condition for using it (when full bodies are needed). It does not distinguish itself from memory_recall or memory_list, so the when-not guidance is partial rather than complete.

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