memory_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses read-only behavior, that status is from the last validation, the special semantics of pending anchors on in-flight branches, and the silent ignore behavior of the worktree parameter via schema.

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 dense but well-organized, with each clause adding necessary operational detail: what it lists, what pending means, the read-only caveat, the prerequisite validation step, and the rebind action. No filler or 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, exclusions, and behavioral nuances. It is fully actionable without missing 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% for the single worktree parameter, including default behavior and silent ignore semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 lists repo memories with stale, gone, or pending anchors and provides suggested re-anchor targets. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the actionable companion to memory_validate, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage direction: run memory_validate first for a fresh check, use memory_rebind for stale/gone entries, and do NOT rebind or mark pending anchors obsolete. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus siblings.

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