Memory Governor · Kernel

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint true), the description adds that recall/inspect are free-ish and writes are gated mutations. It mentions authority and tiers. However, it does not explain what 'J-space mutations' entail, rate limits, or what exactly gets destroyed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the essential identifier. It includes a list of modes. However, the dense jargon and lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) slightly reduce readability.

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 (55 parameters, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It omits explanations for most parameters, does not clarify parameter interactions, and assumes knowledge of the kernel stack. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of usage guidance.

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?

With 55 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains the 'mode' parameter (lists values) and briefly hints at 'tier'. The vast majority of parameters (e.g., query, content, policy) are not addressed, leaving agents to guess their meaning and usage.

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 it is a memory governor for a kernel, managing L1–L6 tiers and listing modes (recall, inspect, etc.). It distinguishes itself from a free notepad and from siblings by focusing on structured memory operations. However, the heavy jargon (J-space, F1/F2/F4/F11) reduces immediate clarity.

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 implies when to use it (for structured memory, not ephemeral facts) and distinguishes read vs write modes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs sibling tools (e.g., arif_observe, arif_think) or when not to use it.

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