consolidate_session_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It describes scanning, deduplication, and writing to DB and markdown files, but it does not explicitly state whether existing entries are modified or if there are side effects beyond writing. This is moderately transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, with a single sentence front-loading the core purpose followed by an optional Args section. Every part is relevant and adds value without repetition.

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 tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the workflow (scan, identify, deduplicate, write) and side effects (writing to DB and markdown). It does not detail the output schema contents, but that is acceptable given the output schema exists. A minor gap is the lack of explanation of the 'high-value' criteria beyond min_quality.

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 only provides types and defaults with no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining n_runs as the number of runs to review and min_quality with its two values and their meanings, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Scan recent agent runs and write structured memory entries for high-value work.' This provides a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from similar tools like add_memory_entry or store_episodic_memory.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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