Project Tessera

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it analyzes based on specific criteria (repetition, source diversity, recency, category stability) and returns categorized results (high-confidence vs. low-confidence memories). However, it omits details like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds details in the second. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the analysis method and output, with zero wasted words.

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 (analyzing multiple confidence factors), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, methodology, and output categories without needing to detail parameters or return formats.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description adds value by explaining the analysis criteria and output categories, justifying a score above the baseline of 3 for such cases.

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 with specific verbs ('analyze confidence scores', 'rates each memory') and resources ('all memories'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_memories' or 'memory_health' by focusing on confidence evaluation rather than listing or health metrics.

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 usage for analyzing memory confidence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_prd' or 'detect_contradictions'. It provides some context (e.g., 'may need review') but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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