rlm_memory_daily_brief

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 mentions the output (summarizes three things) but omits whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or produces side effects. For a 'generate' operation, it should clarify if it modifies memory or simply queries, which is absent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words, and the key purpose is in the first sentence. It effectively front-loads the action and the three categories of output, making it easy to scan.

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 only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate by detailing return format, error conditions, or date format. It mentions what is summarized but not the structure (e.g., text vs. JSON), which could confuse an agent expecting a specific response. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions. The description reinforces that max_items relates to 'Top N' but adds no new syntactic or semantic details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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: 'Generate a Top N active constraints daily brief' and specifies what it summarizes (critical decisions, active rules, pending todos). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings, as no other tool in the list mentions daily briefs or active constraints.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like rlm_memory_health or rlm_memory_review_queue, nor does it mention prerequisites, frequency, or when not to use it. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the many sibling tools.

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