memory_rebuild_embeddings

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions rate limit but does not disclose whether operation overwrites existing embeddings, is idempotent, or how long it takes. Only partially transparent.

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 short sentences: first states purpose, second adds rate limit. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence 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?

Given no parameters and presence of output schema (not shown), description provides operational purpose and rate limit. Could be more complete by noting it's a heavy operation affecting all memories, but adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as none exist.

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?

Description states 'Recompute embeddings for all memories' – specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like 'memory_rebuild_crossrefs' by focusing on embeddings. However, lacks context on what 'embeddings' represent (vector embeddings for search), which could add clarity.

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?

Only mentions rate limit (300s cooldown) as usage constraint. No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., individual memory updates), nor prerequisites or side effects. This is minimal guidance.

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