review_memory_health

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

The description explicitly states 'without modifying files,' which is a key behavioral trait given no annotations. It also lists the types of reports generated. However, it does not disclose potential performance impact or frequency of use considerations.

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 concise sentence that covers purpose, scope, and behavioral guarantee. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown), the description sufficiently covers all relevant information. It clearly defines the tool's function and outputs without missing critical context.

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 parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it implicitly handles all cases.

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: 'Review memory store health by reporting duplicate titles, stale active memories, oversized notes, and unresolved wikilinks.' It uses a specific verb ('review') and resource ('memory store health'), and lists concrete issues. It distinguishes from sibling tools that modify memory.

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 implies when to use the tool (when health check needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It is clear enough for an agent to infer, but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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