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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what soft mode does ('drop from recall index, keep history'), but leaves 'purge' completely undefined — no statement that it is irreversible, what else is deleted, or what is returned. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical efficiently encodes both modes with zero filler. It is terse rather than padded, though that terseness edges into under-specification.

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?

A two-parameter node-deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs more than this. Nothing is said about reversibility of purge, error behavior for unknown node ids, or the effect on related history — all of which an agent must know before calling 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map the two branches to the behavior (soft / purge) and implies node_id selects the target, but it never states that purge is a boolean flag defaulting to false, nor gives any format or scoping for node_id. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb (forget) and resource (a node), and splits it into two named modes (soft vs purge), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like recall/remember. It never names those siblings explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the semantics of the words.

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?

'soft (drop from recall index, keep history) or purge' implies which mode to pick but gives no rule for choosing between them in practice and no when-not guidance. It also does not state prerequisites (ownership/permissions) or warn that purge should be used sparingly.

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 disclosure burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether this is read-only (inferred from "Read"), what happens when the id is unknown (error vs. empty), whether any permissions or scoping apply, or what shape the MemoryNode comes back in.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing is wasted. Brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency, though, since the sentence could carry a clause on return value or failure behavior at no structural cost.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about behavior. For a fetch-by-id tool the agent still lacks the id format, the not-found behavior, and the returned structure, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 0% for the single `node_id` parameter, so the schema offers only a name and a string type. The description adds little beyond reiterating "by id" — it does not say whether ids are UUIDs, opaque strings, or where to obtain one, which is the one piece of guidance a lookup tool most needs.

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 states a specific verb ("Read"), a specific resource ("MemoryNode"), and the lookup key ("by id"), which is enough to understand the operation at a glance. It does not, however, distinguish this by-id fetch from the sibling `recall` tool, which also reads memory content, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Nothing tells the agent when to use this rather than `recall`, which is the obvious alternative for retrieving memory. The only implicit guidance is "by id", which hints at direct lookup but never states the precondition that an id must already be known.

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, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add genuine behavior: include_history replaces each hit with its supersedes chain, and history_depth caps how many versions back are traversed to keep the response small. It says nothing about ranking/scoring method (semantic vs keyword), permissions, or the shape of a returned MemoryNode.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the follow-up paragraph is scoped to one behavior. The '(CoMeT-style)' citation is jargon that earns no place for an invoking agent, a minor cost against otherwise tight prose.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the definition covers result-shaping behavior but omits what comes back (MemoryNode structure, ordering/ranking of hits) and the meaning of k. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the response well enough to plan downstream steps confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of four parameters: include_history and history_depth both receive real semantic content (chain expansion and version budget). 'query' is only described as free-text relevance search, and 'k' — the hit count, default 5 — is left entirely unexplained by both schema and description.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (find) plus the resource (MemoryNodes) and the retrieval method (relevance to a free-text query), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings remember/forget and from the id-based get_node. It does not explicitly state the contrast with get_node or stats, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when... instead of X' guidance against the four siblings. The one real usage rule given is conditional and tied to a flag: setting include_history=True when the agent wants the story rather than the latest state. That is useful but covers only one mode of invocation, leaving the choice between recall, get_node and stats to inference.

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, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that extraction happens via the current cronista, storage is local, the return includes node id and wall latency, and critically that superseded nodes are retained as history with status=superseded. It omits failure/idempotency behavior and permission or concurrency assumptions.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and each line earns its place: what it produces, how relations and supersedes work. The internal benchmark reference is slightly extraneous but harmless context for the returned latency.

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 five-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core write and supersede mechanics but leaves two parameters undefined and says nothing about error or duplicate handling. Adequate, not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two hardest parameters well ('relations' shape with an example, 'supersedes' chain semantics including auto-supersede), but 'tags' and 'session' are documented nowhere in either the schema or the description.

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+resource pair ('Turn ... text into a MemoryNode') and enumerates the internal steps: extract narrative structure, store locally, return the node id. Against siblings recall/forget/get_node/stats it is clearly the write path, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanics rather than stated: it explains when to supply 'relations' and 'supersedes', but gives no explicit 'use this instead of recall when...' routing or prerequisites. An agent can infer this is the ingestion tool, but must infer it.

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, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does signal a read-only inspection operation and names the returned metrics, which is real value. However, it says nothing about cost or scope (does it scan the whole store?), whether 'T3' is a namespace/storage tier, or how the counts are keyed.

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?

A single front-loaded line with no filler; the resource name leads and the payload follows. Minor deduction because 'raw T3 text count' is unexplained jargon that a reader cannot resolve from the description alone.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema. It falls short only on the meaning of the 'raw T3 text' metric and on result shape details.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space on a parameter discussion.

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?

States a specific resource (storage stats) and enumerates what it reports: node counts by status and raw T3 text count. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling memory operations (recall/forget/remember/get_node), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspection/aggregate counts rather than retrieval. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives.

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