memory_validate

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

The description discloses the core action (re-anchoring and marking) but does not clarify if this mutates state, or what happens to marked items (e.g., if stale memories are deleted). Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and is insufficiently detailed.

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?

Single sentence with two clear clauses. Front-loaded with the main action. 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete about what the tool does. However, it could mention whether the tool is safe (read-only vs mutation) or provide details about the output.

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?

No parameters are defined in the input schema, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline score is 4 when there are no parameters.

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 the tool re-anchors every repo memory and marks statuses (current/relocated/stale/gone). The verb 're-anchor' and specific classification list make the purpose clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_doctor or memory_mark_obsolete.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The note 'Runs automatically after indexing' implies it is a maintenance tool, but no alternatives or context are provided.

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