Consolidation Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly declares 'read-only', establishing the safety profile. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required here. It adds no auth, cost, or performance context, but for a read-only reporting tool the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 tight sentences: the first establishes what it produces, the second the cadence and trigger. Front-loaded and efficient, with only the internal 'Instructions.md Sec.7' reference adding mild opacity.

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 read-only report with an output schema, the description covers what it does and when to run it, which is largely sufficient. The only gap is the undocumented vault parameter, a minor omission given its optionality.

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 single optional 'vault' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its default-null behavior. For a low-coverage schema the description should compensate, but it provides no parameter meaning at all.

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 names a specific deliverable (a read-only consolidation report) and enumerates its contents: decayed notes, isolated graph nodes, and divergence issues. This distinguishes it from siblings like detect_divergence or graph_stats, which cover only subsets. The framing as 'The Instructions.md Sec.7 consolidation ritual' is a bit indirect but the purpose remains identifiable.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Run this every ~10 sessions, or when asked to "consolida".' This is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g., when to prefer detect_divergence for a targeted check), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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