agentmem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool returns, not behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, performance characteristics, error conditions, or how it defines 'active memories' or 'same topic'. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('detect contradictions') and efficiently adds output details. Every word contributes value with zero waste, making it highly concise and effective.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does but lacks completeness for a tool that analyzes memory logic. It doesn't clarify scope (e.g., all memories vs. recent), output format, or error handling, leaving gaps despite the simple input schema.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics without redundant parameter info, earning a baseline score above 3 for efficient handling of a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('detect contradictions') and resource ('between active memories'), with precise output specification ('returns pairs of memories that assert and negate the same topic'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_memories (listing) or search_memory (searching) by focusing on contradiction detection.

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 implies usage when checking for logical consistency among memories, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_health (which might check overall status) or when not to use it (e.g., for single memory operations). Context is implied rather than stated.

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