mem_judge

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds useful behavioral details: 'Manual not_conflict verdicts are persisted' and reason/evidence return as 400-character previews with truncation flags. This informs the agent about response behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add relevant detail about persistence and truncation. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: source of judgment_id, persistence semantics, and response preview behavior. It could elaborate on the effect of other verdict types, but that is not critical for selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description references the truncation of reason/evidence, but that is more about output behavior than parameter meaning. It adds no significant parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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: 'Record a manual verdict on a pending relation surfaced by mem_save.' It uses a specific verb ('record') and resource ('verdict on a pending relation'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the mem_save workflow and manual verdicts.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a pending relation is surfaced by mem_save and a manual verdict is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer automatic review or comparison tools.

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