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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'force extraction' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has 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, making it concise, but it lacks necessary detail to be fully effective. It could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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, no annotations, and incomplete parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the meaning of 'force extraction'.

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 50% (only project_id has a description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what session_id represents or how parameters relate to the flush operation.

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 uses a specific verb 'flush' and resource 'session', and it distinguishes from siblings like memory_get and memory_save_turn, which have different purposes. However, it does not clarify what 'flush' and 'force extraction' entail operationally.

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 its siblings (memory_get, memory_save_turn, memory_search). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deterministically' implying consistent ordering, and 'List' suggests read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without 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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure, pagination details) or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 57% (moderate), and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'List' action. For parameters like owner_type, sort_order, and memory_type, the description does not explain their meaning or impact on results, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's limited 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 explicitly states 'List local EverOS memory deterministically' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating best use cases like 'read-your-write checks, recent memory browsing, or session_id-based verification,' which differentiate it from memory_search (search) and memory_flush (flush).

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Best for read-your-write checks, recent memory browsing, or session_id-based verification') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. This gives good guidance but falls short of the full 5-point requirement for explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It reveals it's a write operation but gives no details on side effects, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate keys.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, 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?

Despite six parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context (e.g., what constitutes a 'high-value summary') and no return behavior.

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. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own 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 ('Save') and the resource ('high-value task summary into local EverOS'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'not whole chats'.

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?

Provides clear context ('Use only for distilled outcomes'), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like memory_flush or memory_search.

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

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

No annotations provided; description only states 'search' without detailing behavioral traits like read-only nature, default method, or potential side effects. Lacks disclosure of performance or result aggregation.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and resource, second provides usage guidance. No redundant information, front-loaded with essential context.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits explanation of method, owner_type, and project_id parameters, and does not describe return format or behavior. Schema coverage at 60% is insufficient to compensate.

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 60%. Description adds clarity for query ('short query: a few keywords or one short phrase') but does not explain other parameters like top_k, method, owner_type, or project_id. Relies heavily on schema defaults.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches local EverOS memory for prior coding context. Distinguishes from siblings (memory_flush, memory_get, memory_save_turn) by focusing on search and providing specific use cases like historical fixes.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use: 'for historical fixes, past decisions, or project conventions.' Implicitly excludes other memory operations, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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