memory_toolset

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the tool is free and instant, scoped to credential/writer identity, and that expanding is required because 'clients reject hidden-tool calls.' It does not explicitly state what happens to visible tools when collapsing (e.g., whether they become hidden or inaccessible), which would be useful for a mutation tool. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, which is consistent, but the description adds value without fully covering the consequences of collapse.

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 starts with the core purpose, then lists tier contents, then adds critical usage guidance. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (managing visible toolset tiers) and the presence of an output schema (which likely reports status or tier changes), the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It covers actions, tier contents, and the necessity to expand first. It could be improved by noting the exact effect of 'collapse' (e.g., whether tools are removed or just hidden) to fully inform the agent, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 has a single enum parameter 'action' with values expand/collapse/status, but the schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains the expand and collapse actions through the tier ladder and mentions that 'status' reports the ladder. However, it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what's implied by the enum. With only one parameter and baseline 4 for zero params, but here there is 1 parameter with an enum and the description provides some meaning for each action, a 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 states a specific action ('Adjust YOUR visible toolset, one tier at a time'), names the spectrum (minimal → core → full), and clearly delineates what each tier adds (core adds graph/recall, world facts, lessons, documents; full adds supersede/forget/history, dream and graph-review admin). This is a precise verb+resource statement that differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Expand first: clients reject hidden-tool calls'), what the tiers are, and that it is 'scoped to your credential/writer identity, free, instant.' It provides clear operational guidance and a prerequisite (expand before calling hidden tools).

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