review_learned

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows' memories, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like pagination, sorting, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'recently' means. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with an output schema.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks context for a read operation with one parameter. It specifies the memory sources but omits details like time frames or ordering, making it incomplete for guiding effective use despite the output schema's presence.

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 input schema has one parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to explain what 'limit' controls (e.g., number of memories returned) or its impact, so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Review recently auto-learned memories' specifies the verb (review) and resource (memories), and 'Shows memories created by auto-extract, digest, or session summary' elaborates on the source of these memories. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_memories' by focusing on auto-learned content, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the source of memories (auto-extract, digest, session summary) but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'list_memories' or 'deep_recall' for comparison.

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