hipocampo_maintenance

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by listing steps and stating it returns a consolidated report, but it does not mention side effects like data mutation from dedup or compression from checkpoint, or whether auto-repair is destructive.

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 very concise, using a numbered list for steps and a separate return statement, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value 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 complexity (orchestration of multiple steps) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and returns. It could mention potential duration or order of execution, but overall it is complete enough.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It appropriately describes the tool's purpose, earning the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 it executes a complete maintenance cycle with a numbered list of steps (health check, auto-repair, dedup, checkpoint, tune), distinguishing it from individual sibling tools like hipocampo_auto_repair and hipocampo_dedup.

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?

While the description implies it is for full maintenance, it does not explicitly state when to use this combined tool versus the individual sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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