Carte des thèmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output (a tree of themes with counts) and its routing purpose, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether the data is fresh or cached, or any performance characteristics. This is a moderate coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no 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 adequately describes the return value (a tree of themes with counts) and provides usage context. It could mention whether the tree includes all themes or just those with entries, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs, which is correct.

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 that the tool provides 'the tree of themes with their counts' and positions it as 'the routing map of memory.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_list, though it lacks an explicit verb and could be more explicit about its differentiation from memory_stats or memory_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 offers explicit guidance: 'Load at the start of session to know where to look, then search by theme at each topic change.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and implies a workflow with other tools (searching by theme), making it highly actionable.

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