memora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the critical rate limiting behavior (300s cooldown) and batch scope (all memories). Could improve by mentioning if the operation is blocking or safe to run during active usage.

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 waste: first states purpose, second states critical constraint. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a parameterless utility function.

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 simple schema (no inputs) and existence of an output schema, the description covers essential operational context. The rate limit disclosure is crucial for a resource-intensive batch operation. Minor gap: doesn't clarify if existing embeddings remain available during recomputation.

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 tool has zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4. No parameter documentation is required, and the description correctly focuses on operational behavior rather than inventing non-existent 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 specific action ('Recompute embeddings') and scope ('for all memories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_rebuild_crossrefs or memory_semantic_search.

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 rate limit warning ('300s cooldown') provides implicit guidance about usage frequency, but lacks explicit 'when to use' triggers or comparison to alternative approaches like incremental updates.

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