memory_toolset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses session-scoped, free, instant, one-tier-at-a-time behavior and warns about hidden-tool rejection. It does not detail the exact effects of collapse, but the tool is non-destructive and the behavior is sufficiently described for practical invocation.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding distinct information: what the tool does, what each tier adds, what status does, and a usage warning. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without 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?

The tool is simple with one enum parameter. The description covers the tier system, the actions available, and the practical constraint about hidden-tool calls. Since an output schema exists, return value details are unnecessary. The description is complete 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 action parameter has an enum (expand/collapse/status). The description explicitly explains 'status' by saying it reports the ladder and instructs 'Expand first,' but does not explicitly describe 'collapse.' However, the phrase 'one tier at a time' and the enum itself make collapse inferable. Given 0% schema coverage, the description adds value for expand and status but leaves collapse slightly implicit.

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 'Adjust THIS session's visible toolset,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are memory/document operations, by focusing on toolset visibility. The tier ladder (minimal → core → full) further specifies the scope.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Expand first: clients reject hidden-tool calls.' It also explains what each tier adds, enabling the agent to decide whether to expand to core or full. The phrasing implies collapse is for reducing visibility, and the priority instruction is unambiguous.

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