memory_episode_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail: it returns {found: false} for an unknown id. Beyond that edge case it adds nothing (no pagination or permission notes), so a 3 is fair.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded: the returned contents lead, followed by the intent paraphrase and the not-found case. Slightly awkward inline-code formatting, but no wasted sentences.

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 single-param read tool with a rich output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; the {found: false} disclosure covers the main behavioral unknown. Nothing further is strictly required, though alternative routing remains undocumented.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage (the id is described as 'as it appears on search/recent results'), the schema carries full weight. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (one episode) and enumerates the outputs (stats, tag/source distribution, recent entries), so an agent can tell what it returns. However it lacks an explicit verb and doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like memory_stats or memory_get beyond the episode scoping. Clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is a natural-language trigger ("summarise what we worked on"), which hints at intent, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives among the many siblings (memory_stats, memory_episode_end, memory_get). The agent must infer the routing.

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