brain_hygiene

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the lifecycle transitions, clarifies that archived lessons are excluded from smart_recall but preserved for audit, and explains the dry_run parameter behavior. This is comprehensive for a maintenance tool.

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 concise at three sentences plus a key-value summary of the lifecycle. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then usage guidance, then behavioral details, and finally parameter specifics. Every sentence adds unique value with no 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 has 4 parameters (one required), zero output schema, and moderate complexity, the description completely covers behavior, lifecycle, defaults, and safe usage. It is self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without needing external context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dry_run parameter's default behavior and context (reports changes without writing), and the archive_days and provisional_threshold parameters are semantically tied to the lifecycle ('provisional', 'low-recall lesson'). However, it does not elaborate on instance_id beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resources: 'sweep and maintain your Brain', listing concrete actions (flags provisional, archives, resolves contradictions). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a maintenance operation unique to brain_* tools.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Safe to run on a schedule (weekly CI job) or on-demand before a big release.' It also describes the lesson state lifecycle (active → provisional → archived), guiding when the tool is appropriate and what effects it has, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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