memory_consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool's mutation behavior (merging, flagging) and output type (consolidation report). It mentions dry_run only implicitly via schema; lacks explicit disclosure of performance implications or concurrency safety, but overall is transparent.

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 informative and front-loaded with a clear metaphor, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy (e.g., 'merges duplicates' appears twice). Could be slightly trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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 and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and outputs (report with conflicts, duplicates, before/after count). Missing details on health score format or return structure, but sufficient for understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for all parameters. The description adds only minor context (e.g., linking stale_days to '90+ days' which is already in schema). No additional semantic value beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs like 'scans', 'detects', 'merges', 'flags', and 'computes' to detail the tool's actions on the resource 'lessons' in the AI Brain. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like brain_doctor and brain_diff by positioning as a consolidation/garbage collection tool, unique among them.

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 states when to run ('weekly or when brain_doctor reports > 20 lessons') and provides a metaphor ('like git gc for knowledge') that conveys appropriate usage. This gives clear guidance on frequency and triggers, differentiating from alternatives.

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