memory_alias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the effect on lookups and that it returns the full alias list, but it does not mention permission requirements, reversibility, or error behavior. The mention of the alias list is a useful disclosure.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: action+example, effect, return value. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a two-param alias binding tool, the description covers purpose, effect, and output. With an output schema present, the return value disclosure is a bonus. It could mention idempotency or duplicate alias handling, but these are minor gaps for this simple tool.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description maps the parameters through the example: `pg` (alias) and `postgres` (entity). The phrase 'Bind an alternative name to an entity' defines the relationship between the two params, compensating for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Bind' and identifies the resource: an alternative name to an entity. The example `pg → postgres` clarifies the action, and the mention of facts/graph lookups distinguishes it from other memory tools.

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 when to use it (to create an alias for an entity) but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like memory_supersede. The context is clear via the example, but no exclusions are stated.

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