common_memory

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description goes well beyond by explaining that this is a local disk read over already-harvested evidence, that docmancer's own generated integration copies are excluded to avoid manufacturing agreement, and that recurrence is only a signal, not proof of correctness. It also discloses the empty-return behavior, adding substantial epistemic nuance beyond annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, operational mode, exclusion rule, epistemic caveat, alternative guidance, parameter clarification, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important purpose and remains tight despite its length.

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?

The description fully prepares an agent to select and invoke the tool: it defines the return shape, the empty case, the project_path semantics, and the intended use context. An output schema exists, but the description still explains the function's behavior comprehensively enough even without relying on it.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the only parameter, project_path, with a thorough description that the tool description simply echoes. The description adds no new parameter-level insight beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'list the memories that recur across two or more independent agent harnesses.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from common memory cousins like search_memory or canonical_memory. It also adds a title-equivalent phrase and notes the local disk nature.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use search_evidence to look something specific up instead.' It also clarifies that this tool takes no query and returns the whole recurring set, and gives project_path omission guidance. This makes selection straightforward.

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