memo_lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: results are grouped, capped per category, scale with corpus size, and could exceed response budgets if not limited. This explains the limit parameter's rationale without contradicting 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?

Three sentences, each earning their place: purpose, return characteristics plus rationale, and usage guidance. No redundant phrasing or filler. Front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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 an output schema exists, the description is complete for a read-only lint tool with one optional parameter. It covers what is returned (grouped findings), key constraints (limit, scaling, response budget), and the follow-up action (use other tools to fix). No important gaps remain.

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 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, which already explains its default and the 'counts' field. The description reinforces the cap behavior but adds little novel meaning beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('memory corpus') with a clear scope ('maintenance issues'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on audit/lint findings rather than retrieval, updates, or deletion, and explicitly names the categories of findings (malformed metadata, cleanup needs).

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 directs the agent to use memo_update, memo_delete, or vault edits separately to fix findings, making clear that this tool is for inspection only. This provides a strong usage guideline and differentiates it from mutation tools.

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