wisdom_stoic_memento_mori

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (applying memento mori for perspective) but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or mutative, what the output format might be, any rate limits, or permission requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves operationally.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a conceptual wisdom tool with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and when to use it but doesn't address behavioral aspects or output details. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, it should do more to compensate, such as hinting at what the tool returns or any side effects.

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 description does not mention the 'situation' parameter at all, leaving its semantics entirely to the input schema, which has 100% coverage with a clear description ('The decision or concern to view through mortality lens'). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Apply memento mori - use mortality awareness to gain perspective and clarify priorities.' This specifies both the action ('apply memento mori') and the outcome ('gain perspective and clarify priorities'), making it distinct from generic advice tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wisdom_stoic_premeditation' or 'wisdom_clarify' that might also involve perspective-shifting.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'Use when needing perspective on what truly matters.' This gives a specific trigger (needing perspective) and focus (what truly matters), which helps guide selection. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when other wisdom tools might be more appropriate.

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