memory_insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details about the types of insights returned (conflicts, stale memories, contradicted facts, unsupported decisions) and notes scoping is optional. This provides useful context beyond annotations, though it does not cover performance or rate limits.

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 key information, and contains no fluff. Every phrase adds value: it specifies the content, notes the complementary tool, and declares read-only and scoping.

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 content of insights and complementarity, but does not mention the return format or structure, which is important since there is no output schema. Given the tool's complexity (read-only, optional scoping, three parameters), the description is adequate but leaves room for improvement regarding output details.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (scope, namespace, limit). The description only mentions 'optionally scoped,' which aligns with the scope parameter but adds no new detail about parameter usage or syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 provides a digest of items needing attention: unresolved conflicts, stale memories, contradicted facts, and decisions without evidence. It differentiates from the sibling 'memory_questions' tool, which captures next actions, making the purpose distinct and specific.

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?

It explicitly complements memory_questions, indicating when to use this tool over that alternative. It also notes that it is read-only and optionally scoped, but does not list exclusions or provide a full decision tree for when to use versus other tools.

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