Longhand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by describing what the tool returns (matched projects, episodes, diffs, thinking blocks, file states, markdown narrative) and its proactive nature. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second details returns, and the third provides critical usage guidance. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 memory retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying what it returns and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format structure. The description compensates somewhat by listing return components but doesn't fully explain their organization.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: it's a 'PROACTIVE MEMORY' tool that handles 'do you remember...' questions with fuzzy time references, project matching, and episode retrieval in one call. It specifies the verb ('START HERE'), resource (memory retrieval), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating 'Do NOT manually search and paginate — use this tool first.'

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'START HERE for any 'do you remember...' question' and 'Do NOT manually search and paginate — use this tool first.' It clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like manual searching or pagination, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools.

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