rebuild_memory

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes optional fixes and the wikilink normalization strategy (longest matches first), but does not state whether the tool is destructive, whether it overwrites existing files, or any side effects like permissions needed. The dry_run parameter is mentioned but not its implications for read-only behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the main actions and options. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Every part of the description earns its place.

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 the existence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description provides adequate context about the process. However, it omits details on potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing indexes) and the nature of the output, which would be valuable for an agent assessing impact.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'longest matches first' for wikilinks) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. 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's purpose: repairing and rebuilding the memory store with optional frontmatter fixing and wikilink normalization, followed by rebuilding index files. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_memory_index by including repair steps.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_memory_index or append_memory. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or trade-offs, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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