decay_sweep

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions pruning based on 'idle threshold' and 'low access counts' and that it returns a JSON summary, but it does not explain what the threshold is, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to pinned memories, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences, clearly front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides useful information: the purpose, the mechanism, and the return format. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it selects memories, and what it returns. It could elaborate on the idle threshold or any configuration, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining the action (pruning stale memories) and the return value (JSON summary). This is valuable context that the schema alone cannot provide.

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 prunes stale memories based on recency and access counts, using specific verbs like 'Prune' and 'Removes'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'forget' (explicit removal) and 'store'/'recall' by focusing on automatic cleanup of unused memories. However, it could be more explicit about the idle threshold and access count criteria, which are not fully defined.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forget' for explicit removal or 'consolidate' for merging. It does not state prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description implies automated cleanup 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.