Memory Summarize & Store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions storing a memory but does not explain critical behaviors like near-duplicate detection (evident from 'force' and 'resolution' parameters), the 20,000 character limit, or any side effects. The description is insufficiently transparent for safe agent invocation.

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 very concise with only two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and usage hint. While it could include more guidance, it avoids unnecessary verbosity. 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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, multiple sibling memory tools, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how this tool differs from 'memory_store', 'checkpoint', or 'get_project_history'. The schema reveals important details like conflict resolution and handoff_doc, but the description ignores them, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description only needs to add value beyond the schema. It reinforces that 'session_summary' should be a narrative description, but does not elaborate on other parameters like 'kind', 'scope', or 'resolution'. The schema descriptions are already clear, so the description provides no additional semantic value.

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's purpose: to distill a session summary into a memory entry and store it. The verb 'distill' and the context 'at the end of meaningful sessions' provide a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'memory_store' or 'checkpoint', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 advises calling it 'at the end of meaningful sessions', which gives a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it suggest alternatives such as 'memory_store' for smaller updates or 'checkpoint' for checkpoints. This is a minimal but acceptable guideline.

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