memory_audit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it is read-only, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention performance, size of return, or other potential effects, but for a read-only report, the disclosure is sufficient.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first defines purpose, second provides usage guidance. No redundant words, highly efficient.

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?

Describes the output contents (totals, category breakdown, stale memories, etc.) and mentions defaults for parameters. Lacks output schema, but the description gives enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns. Could mention the format but not critical.

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 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., default values, thresholds). 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?

Description clearly states it produces a one-shot health report for the memory store, listing specific components (totals, category breakdown, stale memories, near-duplicate pairs, expired refs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `forget` and `update` by being read-only and diagnostic.

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 'Read-only — pair with `forget`/`update` to act on findings.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (to inspect) and when to use alternatives (for acting on findings), providing clear context.

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