memory_maint

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

The description mentions side effects: 'Modifies memories (gc/prune/consolidate with dry_run=False)'. It also hints at the dry_run parameter. However, it does not cover other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or idempotency. Given no annotations, the burden is partially met but could be more comprehensive.

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 structured with a hint line, an overview, and bullet points for actions and output/side effects. It front-loads the purpose. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., the hint line restates the actions) and the emoji decorations add little value.

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 15 parameters, no output schema (though hinted at 'Maintenance results with recommendations'), and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It focuses on the action parameter but neglects the majority of other parameters that control the behavior. The agent likely needs more detailed parameter documentation to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and 15 parameters, the description only explains the 'action' parameter in detail. It mentions 'dry_run' indirectly in the side effects note, but other parameters (max_age_days, value_threshold, etc.) are not explained at all. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to set them.

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 explicitly states 'Unified memory maintenance' and enumerates five distinct actions (health, gc, prune, consolidate, dream), each with a clear purpose. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like 'memory' or 'health' by focusing on lifecycle management.

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?

Each action is described with a brief explanation of when to use it (e.g., 'health' for metrics, 'gc' for garbage collection). However, no explicit guidance is given for when NOT to use the tool or alternatives, though the action descriptions imply usage scenarios.

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