revalidate_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not prove truth, but it does not explain what 'flagging' entails, whether it modifies memories, or what the return format is. Only minimal caveat is given.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary action and include a critical caveat. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for quick parsing.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description leaves many questions unanswered: how are results returned, what does 'flag' mean technically, what is the exact role of git refs, and how does this interact with the memory system. The presence of many sibling tools increases the need for clarity.

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 schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter (fromSha, toSha, cwd). No meaning is added beyond the raw schema; the agent must guess parameter purposes from the tool name and description.

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 scans git diff staleness between two refs and flags affected memories for human review, with the explicit caveat that it does not prove truth. This distinguishes it from similar tools like verify_memory or memory_status by specifying the action (scan, flag) and the resource (memories) along with the context of git diff.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like verify_memory, review_memories, or list_memories. The caveat 'for human review' implies it is a non-automated step, but no alternatives or conditions are mentioned.

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