memory_episode_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: the tool returns {found: false} when the episode id is unknown, which tells the agent how to detect a miss instead of assuming an exception.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. The return-value content is front-loaded rather than the action verb, which is a minor ordering quirk, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description nonetheless flags the unknown-id case. For a one-parameter, read-only summary tool this is close to complete; only the absence of routing guidance against similar read tools leaves a small gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("An episode id, as it appears on search/recent results"), so the schema already carries the semantics and the description adds nothing further about the id. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 what is returned: stats, tag/source distribution, and recent entries. It is clearly a read/summary operation, distinct from siblings like memory_episode_start/end, though the verb itself is implied rather than stated.

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 quoted phrase "summarise what we worked on" gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g. memory_recent or memory_history which could also surface recent activity). Usage must be inferred.

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