decay

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but omits details on side effects, destructiveness, permissions required, or idempotency. The brief mention of 'tag tiers' gives some context but is insufficient for a safe understanding.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explanation of what 'decay cycle' entails, the meaning of 'memory weights' and 'tag tiers', and any preconditions or consequences, which would be necessary for full contextual understanding.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the empty schema, but no clarification is needed.

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 verb 'Trigger' and resource 'decay cycle', specifying the action 'reduces memory weights based on tag tiers'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'forget' or 'update', but lacks explicit differentiation, preventing a top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'forget', 'bump', or 'update'. The description does not include when-not-to-use or context for optimal application, leaving the agent without decision support.

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