memory_consolidation_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by framing the tool as a read-only finder ('read the clusters') and explicitly deferring the mutation to memory_consolidate. It also discloses the return shape. It could be stronger by explicitly stating the tool does not modify memories and clarifying what happens when both query and episode are supplied, but it is not misleading.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives the actionable workflow, and the third states the return shape. Every clause earns its place, and the bolded instruction to synthesize and commit via memory_consolidate adds valuable workflow context without padding.

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 eight optional parameters, full schema coverage, and an output-schema hint, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly. It supplies the return format, workflow, and anchor strategy. The only notable gaps are the lack of an explicit 'read-only/no side effects' statement and no guidance on query/episode mutual exclusivity, but these are minor because the workflow implies them.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema: it re-emphasizes query and episode as anchors but does not explain tags, sources, top_k, max_clusters, min_cohesion, or min_cluster_size in more depth. The schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Find clusters of near-duplicate memories ripe for consolidation.' It clearly differentiates this from memory_consolidate by positioning it as the discovery step before commit. The concrete example phrase 'the same thing phrased five ways across five sessions' makes the purpose vivid and 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 gives clear usage context: anchor with query or episode, inspect clusters, synthesize a canonical note, then commit via memory_consolidate. It explicitly names the related sibling tool for the follow-up action. It does not enumerate exclusions versus memory_search or memory_recent, but the consolidation-specific framing is enough to guide selection.

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