memory_sync_mistakes

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'Returns structured JSON for cross-session persistence,' implying writes but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or limits. Minimal behavioral context beyond function.

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 short sentences plus argument description are efficient and front-loaded. No extraneous content, though the argument line could be integrated into prose.

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 simple tool (one optional param, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose, parameter, and output type. Could elaborate on return fields or persistence behavior, but broadly sufficient.

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 has zero description coverage; the description adds 'Max number of recent mistakes to sync,' which provides meaningful explanation for the limit parameter that is absent from 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?

Description clearly states it generates payloads for recent anti-patterns/mistakes for cross-session persistence. While specific enough to distinguish from siblings like memory_sync_decisions, it could be slightly more explicit about the output format.

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 on when to use this tool over siblings like memory_sync_decisions or memory_sync_rules. The description implies it's for mistakes, but doesn't compare or contrast with alternatives.

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