mem_review

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

The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral details: list returns only 400-character previews marked with `content_truncated`, and full reads require a separate tool. This goes beyond the annotations and is valuable for the agent.

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: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, list the actions, and mention the preview behavior plus an alternative. Every sentence contributes value without 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 (5 params, two actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the preview limitation, and a pointer to mem_get_observation for full content. It could mention which params apply to each action, but that is inferable from the schema.

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 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description only reinforces that `action` can be 'list' or 'mark_reviewed', which is already in the schema. It does not add new semantic meaning for `id`, `limit`, or `project`. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a review manager: it lists actions ('list, mark_reviewed') and specifies the resource ('observations due for review'). It also differentiates from mem_get_observation by noting the preview limitation, so the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides an alternative for a specific need: 'read one in full with mem_get_observation'. This indicates when to use another tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with other sibling tools like mem_search, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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