orient

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns memories and includes IDs for direct use in update/connect, implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state lack of side effects or permissions needed, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines core function, second gives usage guidance, third directs to alternative tool. One might argue the second sentence is a directive to the AI rather than tool description, but it remains valuable content.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains it returns memories structured for synthesis with IDs. It does not specify exact structure or differentiate from sibling tools like 'recall', leaving some gaps in 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?

The input schema already describes the single parameter 'domain' as 'The domain to summarise', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond echoing that, so baseline 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 clearly states that the tool returns all known memories for a domain structured for synthesis, and explicitly distinguishes it from the visualise tool by directing when to use that instead. The verb 'return' and resource 'memories for a domain' are specific.

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 description provides an explicit alternative: 'use the visualise tool' when the user asks to visualise. It implies use for synthesis of memories, but does not contrast with other sibling tools like 'recall' or 'remember_all', which might serve similar purposes.

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