mem_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description details the action: reads files and updates the searchable index. While it doesn't specify overwrite vs merge, it adequately conveys the non-destructive update behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 zero parameters, an output schema (not needing description), and sibling tools covering other actions, the description fully explains when and why to use this tool. It mentions the specific files read and the effect on the index.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description implicitly clarifies no arguments are needed by stating 're-ingesting all memory files,' adding value beyond the empty schema.

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 it refreshes the memory index by re-ingesting memory files, specifically from Claude Code and Gemini CLI. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mem_search, mem_recall, etc., which are for different operations.

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 says 'Run this when you know memory files have changed,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternatives needed since siblings cover other actions.

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