check_freshness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the mechanism ('Compares memories... against git commit history') implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or mention any side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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 concise: two sentences plus the usage hint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so describing return values is not required. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., a valid git repository), what constitutes 'staleness', and how the output is structured. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a non-trivial tool interacting with git state.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters 'repo_path' or 'project'. It mentions 'file_path metadata' in the description but does not clarify how parameters relate to it. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 verb 'Check if stored memories are still fresh' and specifies the resource ('stored memories', 'current git state'). It differentiates from sibling memory tools by focusing on 'code-pattern memories' with 'file_path metadata', implying a specific use case not covered by generic recall or 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 description provides an explicit usage scenario: 'USE THIS WHEN: you want to verify that code-pattern memories are still relevant before acting on them.' This frames the context well but does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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