mneme_summarize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that v1.0 uses FTS5 and can add Graphiti fields under condition, but it does not explain what happens when KG state is inactive, whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds technical context. However, the second sentence's jargon (FTS5, Graphiti) might be slightly opaque to an AI agent without further context.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter guidance, return value description, behavioral details, and error conditions. The conditional Graphiti mention is helpful but insufficient for full contextual 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters (topic, date_range, top_k) beyond their schema definitions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no schema documentation, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 states the tool produces a 'Topic summary grouped by directory,' which is a specific verb-object pair. The mention of FTS5 and Graphiti fields differentiates it from sibling tools like mneme_search (search) and mneme_recall (recall), making the purpose 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 implies usage for obtaining a structured summary with directory grouping and optional Graphiti fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., mneme_search for raw results) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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