memory_rebuild_crossrefs

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

Discloses a key behavioral trait: rate limiting with a 300s cooldown. No annotations are provided, so the description adds value. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive or read-only, but the nature of 'recompute' implies idempotence.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and rate limit, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, rate limit, usage context, and references a sibling for further 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 no parameters, so no additional meaning is needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate per guidelines for zero parameters.

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 action ('Recompute cross-reference links') and the resource ('all memories'), with specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'memory_related' for the consistency model.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'periodically (or after bulk imports)' and provides context about eventual consistency gap. Also directs to an alternative ('see memory_related for the consistency model').

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