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 the analysis behavior and output structure, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently covers purpose, classification, and outputs without waste. It's front-loaded with the core function ('Analyze memory health') and uses clear, structured language.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is mostly complete. It outlines the analysis scope and return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., read-only vs. mutative) to compensate for lack of annotations.

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 documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids redundancy.

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: 'Analyze memory health' with specific classification criteria (healthy, stale, orphaned) and output components (health score, breakdown, recommendations, growth statistics). It distinguishes from siblings like 'health_check' (generic) and 'suggest_cleanup' (focused on cleanup only) by specifying memory-specific analysis.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'health_check' (general health) or 'suggest_cleanup' (cleanup-focused), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through its description but not articulated.

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