memory_expertise

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: a saturating curve for level increases, no collapsing of other topics, and the role of the agent in providing classified topics. This goes beyond the minimal annotations, which only set openWorldHint=false. It lacks details on auth or rate limits but is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no superfluous text. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and behavior.

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?

The description explains the core mechanism and actions well, but it does not describe the output format of the profile (no output schema). With 5 parameters and no output schema, a brief mention of what 'get' returns would improve completeness. Still, it covers essential aspects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The tool description adds some context for action semantics but does not provide meaning significantly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool is an adaptive per-user expertise profile with two actions: observe (record demonstrated knowledge) and get (return profile). It uses specific verbs and resource, and the focus on per-user expertise distinguishes it from sibling memory tools.

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 does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains the actions but offers no guidance on when not to use or comparisons to other memory tools. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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