memo_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making the safe read-only nature clear. The description adds 'bounded' and 'evidence metadata' as behavioral context, but does not contradict annotations. However, it does not reveal potential limitations like pagination or result ordering.

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 with no wasted words, but it is too brief for the tool's complexity. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, omitting essential information about parameters and return value.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the concept of stable/active memory, what evidence metadata means, or how the output schema relates to the tool's purpose.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'bounded' which vaguely relates to limit and budget_chars, but does not explain cwd, scope, source, or the exact meaning of the bounds.

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 it returns 'bounded stable and active memory with evidence metadata', which gives a specific verb and resource, but the terms 'stable and active memory' are not defined and do not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like memo_get, memo_list, or memo_context.

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 such as memo_list or memo_search. The description implies a specific memory profiling purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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