sleep_cycle_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing effects. It lists the main actions including 'forgetting,' which implies potential data removal, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive or reversible. It also mentions checkpoint saving without detailing recovery implications. Lacks a warning about permanent memory loss but is reasonably transparent for the listed actions.

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 clear but slightly redundant: it states 'Run the memory sleep cycle' and then 'This performs periodic memory maintenance' which repeats the same idea. Could be tightened but remains concise overall.

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 parameters and an output schema that is not described, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, when to use it, and the key operations involved. It does not mention what the output contains, but the output schema exists separately and isn't required for understanding the tool's core 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, as none exist. The action is fully described without parameter dependencies.

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's purpose: 'Run the memory sleep cycle' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates specific actions (consolidation, resolution regeneration, forgetting, checkpoint saving) that distinguish it from other memory-related tools like memory_save or memory_update.

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?

It explicitly recommends when to run: 'Recommended to run periodically (e.g., daily or after many conversations).' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, distinguishing it from on-demand memory operations.

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