memory_questions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds behavioral context: it operates over 'currently-valid top-level memories', returns structured questions with evidence, and supports optional filters. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns each sentence by explaining what the tool returns and the types of questions. Could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description fully explains the return format ({ questions: [{ question, type, evidence }], count }) and mentions the optional scope/namespace filters and limit. It is complete for safe, effective use.

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 parameter descriptions already exist. The description restates the optional filters and default limit, which adds marginal value beyond the schema. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond what the schema covers.

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 surfaces open questions and gaps (ambiguous links, gaps, orphans) from the memory graph, using specific verbs like 'surfaces' and 'digest'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by its unique output format and purpose.

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 implies usage for verification and learning ('so you know what to verify or learn next') but does not explicitly contrast with other analytical tools like memory_insights or memory_search. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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