amplify_promote_from_memory_md

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Returns drafts only — never writes to SQLite') and describes the heuristics used. This gives an agent a clear understanding of side-effect-free behavior.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the action and version, then provides heuristics, safety, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, heuristics, safety, and usage context, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage. The schema already explains the parameter well. The description restates the path pattern but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 action: 'Read a memory/<YYYY-MM-DD>.md file and surface DRAFT suggestions for amplify_learn / amplify_decisions follow-up calls.' It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning heuristics and its role after amplify_audit_freshness.

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: 'Use when amplify_audit_freshness flagged a stale day worth triaging.' It also implies not to use if you need writes ('never writes to SQLite'). However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools or provide full alternatives.

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