memory_doctor

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

Discloses read-only behavior and explains that pending anchors are informational only, plus notes that it reports last-validated status. No annotations present, so description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

Concise, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and adds essential details in subsequent sentences. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its dependency on memory_validate. Covers all needed context for correct usage.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds context about the output (list with status and suggested targets), which adds value beyond the schema.

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 what the tool does: 'List repo memories whose anchor is stale, gone, or pending, each with suggested re-anchor targets.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing memory_validate and memory_rebind.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'run memory_validate first for a fresh check' and what not to do: 'do NOT rebind or mark it obsolete' for pending anchors. Also directs to memory_rebind for stale/gone entries.

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