rebuild_memory

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

The description discloses the key behaviors: fixing frontmatter, applying wikilinks with 'longest matches first', and rebuilding indexes. It also mentions the dry_run flag for testing. However, it does not explicitly state whether existing data is overwritten or the full side effects.

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 sentence that packs significant detail, but it is somewhat dense and could be split for readability. It is concise but not perfectly structured.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main functionality and parameters. However, it lacks high-level context on when to run this tool relative to other operations (e.g., after creating memories).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema by mentioning 'longest matches first' for wikilinks and that dry_run reports changes without writing. This adds value for understanding parameter behavior.

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: 'Repair and rebuild the memory store' with specific actions (fix frontmatter, apply wikilinks, rebuild indexes). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning rebuilding index.md and index.yaml, which other tools like build_memory_index may only partially cover.

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?

While the description implies usage for repairing the memory store, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like build_memory_index or append_memory. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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