adaptive_reduce_memories

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

Without annotations, the description provides basic behavioral insight: it removes low-salience redundant memories until threshold is met. However, it omits details like whether memories are permanently deleted, the exact selection algorithm, or reversibility. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and mechanism. No extraneous words; every part contributes to understanding.

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?

The description lacks information about return values, side effects, or whether the operation is destructive. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover more behavioral details (e.g., what happens to removed memories, final cognitive load).

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds some context via 'low-salience redundant memories' but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 the tool adaptively reduces memories to lower cognitive load by removing low-salience redundant memories. Verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'forget_memory' or 'forget_weak_memories' through the adaptive and redundancy criteria.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not contrast with similar tools (e.g., 'forget_memory', 'compress_context'), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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