Tidy Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains that entries are organized into sections, but does not clarify whether this moves, edits, merges, or removes content, whether it is reversible, or whether it modifies the file destructively.

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?

Two concise sentences: one defines the action and one gives the usage trigger. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameters, the invocation is simple, and the description covers what and when. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the caller should expect afterward — e.g., whether a summary is returned or whether existing content is rewritten — leaving some uncertainty for an AI agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds context about the target content of the operation, which is appropriate even though no parameter-level documentation is needed.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: organizing standalone dated entries into sections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_memory, search_memory, or delete_memory, none of which perform reorganization.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when memory.md has many orphaned entries that could be categorized. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the trigger condition is clear and actionable.

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