memory_analyze_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool checks but doesn't mention whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, permission requirements, or error handling. The description states it 'returns a dictionary' but doesn't explain the structure or format of recommendations.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by categorized parameter documentation and return value information. Every sentence adds value, though the initial purpose statement could be slightly more concise. The Args/Returns sections provide clear organization without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, health analysis function) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description provides good coverage. It explains all parameters thoroughly and states the return type. However, without annotations and with behavioral aspects unexplained, it's not fully complete for a diagnostic 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, optional status, and default values, adding significant value beyond the bare schema. The stale_days parameter gets specific context about what 'stale' means (days without validation).

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 with specific verbs ('analyze', 'checks for') and resources ('memories in the system'), listing the three specific health issues it examines. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_detect_contradictions (which only finds contradictions) and memory_validate_tool (which validates rather than analyzes health).

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 context through the types of issues checked (contradictions, low-confidence, stale memories), suggesting it's for system maintenance or debugging. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_detect_contradictions or memory_validate_tool, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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