memory_check

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

The description details what the tool flags (stale data, contradictions, overdue reviews, etc.) and what it returns (classification + recommended actions), adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It's consistent with read-only behavior and gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerating flags and returned values, ending with actionable usage guidance. Every sentence contributes information with no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return categories (strong/weak/noise/dangerous) and cleanup actions. The optional parameter scope is covered by the schema. The tool is relatively simple, and the context is sufficiently complete, though more detail on cleanup actions could be added.

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?

The single parameter (entity_id) is fully documented in the schema with 'Check one entity, or omit for full memory audit', so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond this, maintaining the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assess') with a clear resource ('quality and reliability of current memory state') and enumerates distinct outputs (signal classification, cleanup actions). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on trustworthiness of memory rather than reads, writes, or decision checks.

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 final sentence gives explicit guidance: 'Call this before acting on memory to know what to trust.' This provides a clear usage context, though it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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