memory_agents

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, but the description offers little beyond constraints: park expiry defaults (12 h/7 d max), 'children <=8', 'advisory files', 'No globs/directories/edit enforcement', 'Park/status grants no approval'. It never explains idempotency, retry behavior, or the effect of each action, which matters for a non-idempotent, non-read-only tool. The bearer-auth note is useful but leans on annotations for the rest.

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 prose is a dense, telegraphic wall of semicolon-separated fragments ('Ringing needs live listener; waits need wait-mail/Codex doorbell/next-turn reachability') that is difficult to parse and not front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. Many sentences do not earn their place in their current form because their referents are unclear, so this fails conciseness and structure despite being short.

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 values need not be described, but for a 15-parameter, non-read-only, non-idempotent coordination tool the description leaves key behaviors (what 'list' returns, how claims/parks interact, failure/retry semantics, which actions accept which params) unexplained. The scattered hints help but fall well short of what an agent needs to call this correctly across its four actions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it partially does: park_reason enum values, park_clear_by options (agent id/maintainer/anyone), children <=8 with '[] clears', expect semantics ('overdue seconds'), and the claim scheme (coordinator:<project>/claim:<path>). But 15 parameters exist and several (path, task, lease, worktree, repository_id, park_needs, park_resume, park_expires) are only mentioned in passing or have their semantics left implicit.

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 names concrete resources (claims, parks, leases, projects/tasks) and a bearer-auth requirement, and the first line hints at a list-before-shared-work workflow. However, it never opens with a clear statement of what the tool does as a whole (e.g., 'Coordinate multi-agent state: register activity, claim work, park/resume tasks'), so an agent must infer the purpose from scattered fragments. The 'project/task: relevance only' fragment is opaque without context.

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?

It offers implied guidance: 'list before shared work/resume' and 'project/task: relevance only', plus action-ish hints ('reclaim renews, release frees, busy queues'). But there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. siblings like memory_message or memory_session_title, and no when-not-to-use. The advice is present but fragmentary and requires the agent to piece it together.

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