push

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the packet is schema-validated and scanned for secrets/absolute paths. However, it omits details about success responses, error handling, or whether the operation is side-effect-free.

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 concise (two sentences) and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second gives usage tips and an alternative. No extraneous information.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. It covers validation and scanning but lacks details on return values, error conditions, and the implications of sending packets.

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 value by explaining that 'allow_unredacted' skips the redaction pre-flight, which is not fully clear from the schema alone. This enriches understanding beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 action (send a Core Memory Packet to the configured ltm server) and the resource (Core Memory Packet). It also mentions validation and scanning. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings, such as 'publish' or 'save', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (sending packets) and references the 'example' tool as an alternative for obtaining a valid shape reference. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or provide exclusions.

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