memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral constraints, such as not creating duplicate active memories and not retiring memory unless explicitly asked. But it does not clearly state side effects of each action (e.g., whether 'remember' persists data or whether 'judge' mutates state) or any permission requirements. Thus it adds some context but leaves notable 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 information-dense and well-structured: an overview sentence, a list of action usage, a decision rule for updates, and a fallback tip. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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 (7 actions, 2 params, no annotations), the description covers action selection and key behavioral rules, which is strong. The existence of an output schema and the 'help' action mitigate missing details. However, some actions like 'judge' are cryptic ('required conflict-judgment receipts'), leaving a slight completeness gap.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The description compensates somewhat by enumerating valid actions and explaining when to use each, but it does not explain the structure or required use of the 'data' parameter for each action. It only hints at help via 'if unsure about fields, call action=help.' Therefore, parameter guidance is incomplete.

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 it is a 'Daily Memory Arbiter tool' and enumerates seven specific actions with short roles, such as 'remember for new reusable facts' and 'find for active recall.' This gives a specific, multi-action purpose, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_review or memory_govern, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance for each action (remember, find, read, update, judge, status, help) and gives a concrete scenario for replacing a source of truth (find/read then update, avoid duplicates). It also directs the user to call help if unsure. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus sibling tools, so it lacks alternative exclusions.

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