engram_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that the operation is non-mutating ("Changes nothing."), which is genuine value an agent could not otherwise know, but it says nothing about cost, scope, or what the report looks like.

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?

One compact sentence plus a safety clause. The finding categories are front-loaded and every fragment earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description needs only to say what the tool reports and whether it mutates — both of which it does. The one shortfall is that it doesn't help an agent choose between this and the other diagnostic tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource combination (a maintenance report) and enumerates the four finding categories it surfaces: corrected/disputed conclusions, unsupported inferences, unresolved conflicts, and broken links. That is far more specific than the name alone, though it never distinguishes itself from the closely related engram_audit or engram_status siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when checking memory health. There is no explicit when-to-use framing and no mention of when to prefer engram_audit or engram_status instead, which matters given several diagnostic siblings exist.

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