memory_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses key behavioral traits: the operation is a read-only comparison that does not record conflicts. While it doesn't cover auth or rate limits, for a simple query tool this is sufficient.

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, concise sentence in Chinese that front-loads the primary action ('compare two memories'), then adds return value and side-effect. No redundant 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 tool's low complexity and the existence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings and does not mention error conditions.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'left_id' and 'right_id'. While the context of comparing memories gives a hint that they are IDs of memories, the description should explicitly state their roles to avoid ambiguity.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: comparing two memories for conflict and returning an explainable reason. It also specifies that it does not record conflicts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_arbitrate or memory_list_conflicts.

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 through its stated side-effect (no conflict recording), suggesting it is appropriate when comparison without recording is needed. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance or comparison with alternatives.

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