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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a destructive effect ("retire those memories") and that recall duplicates this behavior implicitly, which is valuable. But it never defines what retirement means (deletion vs. flagging vs. mark_outdated), nor whether the check is report-only, leaving real ambiguity about consequences.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded before the sibling cross-reference. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, triggering condition, and the sibling overlap. The only shortfall is the undefined semantics of "retire," which matters for a mutating, no-parameter 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the description correctly explains the implicit scope (all memories with linked files) instead of inventing arguments. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check whether a memory's linked files changed since save, then retire those memories. It also names the sibling that performs the same work (recall), so an agent can separate it from the other memory tools.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for calling it ("directly after big changes") and names the alternative (recall does this automatically). The phrasing is slightly ambiguous about why to call it at all if recall is automatic, but the when-to-use signal is present and concrete.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a side effect beyond the name — it re-links the memory to the current version of its files — but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to conflicting/stale links.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the qualifying scenario and the side effect. No filler, though the parenthetical adds a level of nesting that slightly slows reading.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple single-parameter mutation. However, with zero annotations the description should cover more of the mutation's behavior — permissions, reversibility, or how re-linking interacts with check_stale/sync_to_files — to be fully 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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The parameter is a single self-evident identifier ('memory_id') for the memory being confirmed, so the gap is small, but no format or sourcing guidance is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a memory as still true') and clarifies the state transition being reversed (retired when a linked file changed). This implicitly contrasts with mark_outdated and replace_memory, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical supplies a concrete trigger condition — use it after a memory was retired because a linked file changed but the fact itself didn't. It does not state the inverse case (when the fact is no longer true, use mark_outdated) or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing guide.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The naming ('explain', 'show') strongly implies a read-only inspection, and the description discloses the two categories of information returned (origin and subsequent history), but it never states read-only semantics, whether any state changes, or permission needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and closing with the usage cue. No filler or restated name/title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description already says what is surfaced. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the read-only guarantee and memory_id format are missing.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single memory_id parameter, so the description should compensate and does not — it says 'a memory' with no hint about ID format or how to obtain one. The parameter is self-describing enough ('memory_id', title 'Memory Id') that the gap is mild rather than fatal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'show where a memory came from' plus 'everything that has happened to it since'. This clearly separates it from siblings like recall (retrieval) or check_stale (staleness), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition: 'Use it when a memory looks wrong or surprising.' That is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for related diagnostic tasks such as list_conflicts or check_stale.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is a reasonable signal, but the description does not confirm non-mutation, disclose whether results are ranked or filtered, or say anything about the decision workflow the pairs feed into.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and every clause adds scope or intent. No filler or restated title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. The description covers scope and intent adequately for a zero-param lister, though it could have named resolve_conflict to complete the workflow picture.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals that scoping is implicit (current project) rather than parameterized.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (pairs of memories that may contradict each other), with the scope confined to 'this project'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from resolve_conflict by framing the output as items that 'need a decision', though it does not name that sibling.

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 phrase 'need a decision' hints that this is a discovery step preceding resolve_conflict, but the description never states when to call this versus resolve_conflict or check_stale. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: the memory stops counting as current but retains history, i.e. a soft deprecation rather than a delete. It also implies a reason is mandatory. It stops short of saying whether the action is reversible, whether the record still appears in recall, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect before the alternative. The closing rationale ("so the next session knows the new fact, not just that the old one is wrong") is slightly expansive but justifies the routing advice rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers effect plus the main alternative for a two-parameter mutation. Gaps remain around reversibility and how an outdated memory behaves in later recall or conflict resolution, which matters given the absence of annotations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds meaning for reason ("a short reason") and clarifies memory_id indirectly via the "replaces=<this id>" reference, but never says where the id comes from or what form it takes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Mark a memory as no longer true") plus the scope of the effect ("stops counting as current but keeps its history"). That effect statement cleanly separates it from destructive siblings like replace_memory and from the forward-looking remember.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: if you know what's true now, use remember(..., replaces=<this id>) instead. It names the alternative tool, the parameter to use, and the condition that selects it, so the agent does not have to infer when this tool is the wrong choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses result ordering (active memories first, then retired/replaced/outdated ones, labeled) and warns "never rely on those." That's meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema; it stops short of stating it is a read-only operation or how the limit affects results.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then trigger conditions, then result-ordering behavior. Sentences are dense but each carries information; the ordering/caveat sentence is slightly long but earns its length by preventing misuse of stale results.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be restated, and the description covers scope (this project), usage timing, and result semantics including stale entries. The only gap an agent still faces is the meaning/effect of the limit parameter.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. "By meaning" usefully tells the agent the query is natural-language/semantic rather than keyword syntax, but the limit parameter (default 5) is never mentioned in either place.

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?

"Search this project's shared memory by meaning" gives a specific verb (search) plus resource (project shared memory) and modality (semantic, not keyword). It doesn't explicitly name a contrasting sibling such as remember or list_conflicts, so the read-vs-write distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete triggers: "at the start of every task" and "whenever project-specific knowledge (setup, conventions, past decisions) might matter." It does not state when to prefer a sibling (e.g., explain_memory or list_conflicts) instead, so routing guidance is one-sided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the operational implications of the `files` parameter (flagging when changed) and the `replaces` parameter (retiring old memories).

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 information is well-structured, moving from the high-level purpose to usage guidelines and then drilling down into specific parameter semantics. No sentence is wasted, and the scope definition is front-loaded.

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 is complex due to its metadata requirements (`files`, `replaces`). The description covers all necessary context for an agent to choose this tool over siblings and invoke it with correct semantics.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It perfectly explains the semantic meaning of all three parameters, detailing what 'files' means (repo-relative paths) and what 'replaces' refers to (memory ID).

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 goal: to save a 'durable fact' for future sessions and distinguishes this function from built-in memory or notes files.

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?

It provides explicit guidelines on when to use the tool (conventions, setup gotchas, decisions) and, critically, when *not* to use it (temporary task details or code content).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the old memory disappears from recall but retains its history, which is the key non-destructive/retirement behavior an agent needs. It still omits whether the operation is reversible, what happens if new_id doesn't exist, and permission requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical example earns its place by disambiguating the semantics. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the behavioral effect is covered. However, for a mutation-style tool with zero annotations and two undocumented required ID parameters, the description leaves an agent guessing about ID provenance and irreversibility.

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% and both required parameters are undocumented titles ('Old Id', 'New Id'). The description implies the old/new relationship but never states that these are memory identifiers, nor any format or validity constraints, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retire an older memory') plus the causal condition that defines it ('because a newer one replaces it'), with a concrete example. This distinguishes it from siblings like mark_outdated, which retires a memory without a superseding replacement.

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 selection condition is clear and concrete: use this when a newer memory supersedes an older one, and the Postgres/MySQL example makes the scenario unambiguous. It does not explicitly name mark_outdated as the alternative for retiring without a replacement, nor state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive outcome of replaces_old=True ('the old one is retired') and the non-destructive alternative, but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, error behavior, or whether other memories referencing the retired one are affected.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then the two flag branches, then the escalation rule. No filler sentences, though the value-branch phrasing is slightly terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the acceptance/rejection semantics of the boolean are covered. The main omission is any prerequisite about how a conflict is identified before calling this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the pivotal boolean replaces_old with both branches, which is the hardest parameter; however, new_id and old_id are left entirely undocumented and their roles are only inferable from their 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?

States a specific verb ('settle') and resource ('a possible conflict'), and the flag semantics make the outcome unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_conflicts or replace_memory, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Ask the user if you're not sure' gives a useful uncertainty rule, and the tool is implied to be used when a conflict is detected. However, it never names which sibling to use instead (e.g. list_conflicts to find conflicts, replace_memory for a straight replacement), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the name: it writes into a 'managed section' (implying it won't clobber unrelated file content), the result is committed with code, visible to teammates and tools lacking Mnemolith, and surfaces in reviews. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether it overwrites prior content, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination before the effect and the when-to-call clause. Every clause contributes; it is marginally verbose but not padded.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it adequately covers what it does, where it writes, the blast radius, and when to invoke it. Only permission/overwrite semantics are left unspecified, a minor gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level gaps exist to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb (write/sync) plus the resource (this project's current memories) and the exact destination artifact (the managed section of AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md). An agent can distinguish this file-writing sync from sibling memory operations like remember, recall, and replace_memory without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'when the user asks, or after a batch of new memories.' This is clear triggering context, though it names no exclusions or alternative sibling (e.g., when to prefer remember or replace_memory instead).

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