memory_doctor

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

No annotations provided, but description declares it is read-only and reports last-validated status, which adequately conveys that it does not modify state. More detail on how re-anchor targets are generated would improve score.

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 succinct sentences: first states the main action, second adds behavioral context and prerequisite, third gives the next step. No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, side effects, and follow-up action. It also positions itself among siblings. Completely sufficient for an agent to understand and use correctly.

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?

Tool has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the tool outputs (list of memories with suggested targets), which helps the agent understand the result without an output 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?

Description clearly states it lists repo memories with stale or gone anchors and provides re-anchor suggestions. It defines specific verb 'List' with a clear resource condition, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: run memory_validate first for fresh status, then use this tool for stale memories, and finally rebind with memory_rebind. Provides clear sequential workflow and context about being read-only.

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