memory_episode_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful non-obvious behavior: 'Returns {found: false} for an unknown id'. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 two sentences and every part earns its place: the summary content, the real-world phrase, the source of ids, and the not-found return. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundant filler, making it highly efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what is returned, how to obtain the parameter, and an edge case. It does not explain terms like 'tag/source distribution', but the output schema can handle return details, so the description is complete enough for selection and correct invocation.

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?

Although the schema has no description for the 'id' parameter (0% coverage), the description compensates by indicating the id refers to an episode and by specifying where to find episode ids ('Episode ids appear on search/recent results'). This gives the agent enough semantic grounding to supply the correct 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 a specific verb and resource: provides 'Stats, tag/source distribution, and recent entries for one episode'. It immediately distinguishes from siblings by focusing on episode-level summaries rather than global stats or individual records, and the quoted user intent 'summarise what we worked on' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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: use when you need a summary of a specific episode, and it explicitly explains how to obtain the required id ('Episode ids appear on search/recent results'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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