amplify_audit_freshness

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates this is a read-only listing operation (no modifications) and its purpose (retroactive triage). Slight lack of side-effect detail, but adequate for a list tool.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with version and core action. Every sentence adds essential context 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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns (list of files newer than write), the condition for its use, and the overall purpose. Complete for a filtered-list tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, just implying use of OR between project and project_path. Baseline 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 states the tool lists memory files newer than the latest Amplifier write for a project. It identifies the resource (memory/<YYYY-MM-DD>.md files) and action (list), and distinguishes itself by focusing on freshness audits rather than other amplify operations.

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?

Explicitly provides two specific use cases: when amplify_context_load shows a stale-memory warning, or when suspecting unrecorded sessions. This gives clear guidance on when to employ the tool over its siblings.

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