memory_dream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that status is read-only, pull writes via memory_fact_set and then commits, commit advances the cursor, run loops until drained, and deep is dry-run by default with apply=true making snapshots and refusing if unable. It also notes that duplicate slots are never auto-deleted, offering strong behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, using a bulleted action list that front-loads the purpose and then provides concise, information-dense lines for each action. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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's complexity (5 actions, 5 parameters, a rich ecosystem of sibling tools), the description is comprehensive. It covers all actions, side effects, return types, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed, and the description adequately notes per-action dicts and error handling. It also references complementary tools like memory_fact_set and memory_graph_review, placing the tool in context.

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 compensate. It effectively does so by explaining every parameter in context: limit is described in pull as 'up to limit', cursor in commit, apply in deep ('apply=true snapshots'), and snippets in deep ('snippets=false omits evidence'). The action enum values are also fully explained, adding significant semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 and resource: 'Drive the dream — consolidation of recent memories into canonical facts and graph structure.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on the dream consolidation process and enumerates five distinct actions, 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?

Each action is described with clear context: pull is for reading unconsolidated memories, commit advances the cursor, run executes a server-side dream, and deep performs full-corpus consolidation. It references memory_graph_review as a follow-up tool and notes that duplicates are never auto-deleted, providing practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like memory_consolidate or memory_consolidation_candidates, so it falls short of a 5.

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