memory_episode_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does well by stating what the tool returns and explicitly documenting the unknown-id fallback of `{found: false}`. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, but 'summary' and the return behavior strongly imply a read-only operation.

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: it lists the key content, gives a natural-language usage cue, and includes the important edge-case return value. No sentence 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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the call returns, how to identify an unknown episode, and the source of valid ids (via the schema). Nothing critical is missing for 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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter with a clear description ('An episode id, as it appears on search/recent results'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's focus: stats, tag/source distribution, and recent entries for one episode. The plain-language cue 'summarise what we worked on' makes the intent obvious, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like memory_stats or memory_recent.

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?

Usage context is implied: you use this when you want a summary of a single episode, and the id should come from search/recent results. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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