memory_review

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the return payload (resolved file, word count, soft budget, evidence-based cleanup instructions) and explicitly states the tool never edits or deletes files itself. That side-effect profile is the single most important behavioral fact for a memory-management tool.

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 with a distinct job: purpose, usage boundaries, behavior/return contract. Nothing is redundant and the triggering condition is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-annotation, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, what it returns, and what it will not do. No material gap remains for correct invocation.

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 is one parameter (cwd) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains its meaning and the multi-root requirement. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb ('review and trim') with a specific resource ('project memory') and clarifies the tool's role: it inspects and produces cleanup instructions rather than mutating. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools memory_save and memory_forget, which is exactly the routing signal an agent 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?

It gives both positive triggers ('when the user requests cleanup or a major project change makes guidance obsolete') and explicit exclusions ('Do not call every turn or after routine tasks'). This is textbook when/when-not guidance and leaves nothing to inference.

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