memory_review

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 explicitly states the operation is read-only and adds a useful behavioral caveat about inspecting conflict_detail before judging a conflict. While it does not address rate limits or auth, those are less critical for a read-only inspection tool, and the description provides the key behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and immediately providing actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler. The structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly extract the essential 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?

The description is reasonably complete for a simple review tool: it lists the available views, points to help for accepted fields, and warns about conflict_detail. However, the `data` parameter remains completely unexplained, and there is no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool relative to siblings. The output schema mitigates some return-value ambiguity, but the parameter gap keeps this from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially explains the `view` parameter by pointing to view="help" for accepted fields. The `data` parameter is never mentioned, leaving a significant gap in understanding. This makes the description insufficient for fully correct parameter use.

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 labels the tool as 'Read-only inspection' and enumerates the specific views it exposes (overview, doctor, conflicts, conflict_detail, etc.), making the tool's intent evident. It differentiates from siblings like memory_govern and memory_repair by emphasizing inspection rather than governance or repair. The 'doctor' view is slightly ambiguous without further explanation, but the overall purpose is clear.

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 gives explicit usage directives: 'Use memory_review(view="help") for accepted fields' and 'Inspect conflict_detail before judging a conflict.' These are concrete, actionable instructions for when and how to use the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like memory_govern or memory_repair, but the 'Read-only' framing implies when this tool is appropriate.

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