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 does well: it clarifies that the vault is untouched unless apply=true, that apply writes a digest and review queue under lore/, and that index maintenance happens either way but changes no results. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or the exact format of writes, but the key mutation and side-effect behavior 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then mutation behavior, then output verbosity. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must provide context. It covers the tool's purpose, side effects, parameter effects, and output verbosity (summary vs. verbose). It lacks detail on the exact return format, but for a report tool the description is sufficiently complete.

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 50% (apply has no schema description). The description compensates by explaining that apply=true writes a digest and review queue, and that verbose=true returns every finding rather than a summary. The verbose explanation duplicates the existing schema description, but the apply clarification adds real meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Run the consolidation pass') and resource, then enumerates the exact finding types (duplicate passages, contradicting facts, stale knowledge, missing links, orphan notes). This clearly distinguishes it from most siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., lore_review) or state when to prefer this over them.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It says 'Run the consolidation pass' but does not describe the scenario that should trigger this tool versus alternatives like lore_review or lore_search. Usage is only inferred from the purpose.

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