memory_audit_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is pure SQL aggregation with no semantic judgment (indicating read-only behavior) and lists the computed metrics. This is transparent for an audit summary, though it could mention if any side effects exist (unlikely).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key output, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds unique information.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully explains what the tool returns and its intended use. It is complete for an audit summary tool.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output structure and purpose, which goes beyond the empty input schema.

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 returns a memory statistics overview for each workspace, listing specific metrics (entry count, time range, conflict count, source distribution). It differentiates itself from siblings by being a pure SQL aggregation without semantic judgment, distinct from more specific tools like memory_arbitrate or memory_compare.

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 explains the tool is for quickly determining if in-depth review is needed, implying use for high-level assessment. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the context and sibling tool names provide sufficient guidance.

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