Project Tessera

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: the tool finds conflicts, shows severity (HIGH/MEDIUM), and indicates which memory is newer. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'stored memories' entail. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of 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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, details, and usage guidance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function. Minor improvement could be made by tightening phrasing, but it's efficient overall.

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 (moderate, as it analyzes contradictions), no annotations, an empty input schema, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage, though it could elaborate more on scope or limitations. The output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implies the tool operates on all stored memories without filtering. This adds slight context beyond the empty schema, justifying a score above the baseline.

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: 'Detect contradictions among your stored memories' with specific examples (decisions, preferences, facts). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on contradiction detection rather than listing, searching, or managing memories. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'audit_prd' or 'suggest_cleanup' that might involve consistency checks.

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 usage: 'Use periodically to keep your knowledge base consistent,' implying it's a maintenance tool. It doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives, but the periodic guidance is helpful. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings like 'audit_prd' are given.

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