rlm_memory_compact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions actions (dedup, promote, archive) but does not discuss potential side effects, irreversibility, permissions needed, or what happens to archived data. The agent is left unaware of risks.

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 a single sentence that efficiently enumerates the tool's actions. Every word serves a purpose; no 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 description covers the main operations but omits details like the effect of dry_run, what happens to deduplicated memories, and whether archiving means deletion or relocation. Given the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose of some parameters (e.g., deduplicate, promote_threshold, archive_older_than_days) but adds no additional nuance beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Compact and optimize memories' and lists specific actions (deduplicate, promote, archive). It distinguishes itself from other memory-related sibling tools by focusing on compaction and optimization.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rlm_memory_clean_candidates or rlm_memory_duplicate_candidates. No when-not-to or alternative indications are given.

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