configure_limits

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key non-obvious side effect: lowering limits triggers eviction. However, it stops short of explaining what eviction entails (e.g., which images are removed, reversibility), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first states the core function, the second provides the important side-effect warning. Every word earns its place.

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 three-optional-parameter configuration tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: purpose, side effect, and the schema's defaults cover the essential call information. Missing explicit interaction with get_memory_stats or eviction behavior detail are minor gaps.

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%, with all three parameters (max_images, undo_levels, max_memory_mb) already documented with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Configure') with a specific resource ('memory limits for the image store') and adds a concrete behavioral consequence (eviction). It clearly differs from the read-oriented sibling get_memory_stats, so an agent can distinguish the writing operation without opening the schema.

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 intended use is implied: configure limits when you want to change the image store's memory behavior, while get_memory_stats is the read counterpart. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites.

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