Index de routage

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool regenerates and returns the index, and explains the auto-injection behavior, which adds context about the file's role and how the call fits into the workflow. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting, but 'régénère' sufficiently implies a write operation.

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 two sentences: the first defines the core function and file path, the second explains the automatic injection context and the refresh use case. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what the index contains, and when to use it (to refresh the session-injected index). The list of contents gives the agent a clear expectation of the return value, so no additional output documentation is needed.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, which 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 uses a specific verb ('Régénère et renvoie') with a precise resource (the memory index file ~/.memsem/memory-index.md) and enumerates its contents (themes, keywords, pinned items, facts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list or memory_search, which focus on searching or listing memory entries rather than regenerating the index.

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 explains that the index is automatically injected at the start of each session and that this call is used to refresh it, providing clear usage context. It implies the primary use case (manual refresh) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which is why it does not earn a 5.

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