What is fading

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are deterministic and computed from the vault's own fitted forgetting curve, and implies a read-only listing. It does not state pagination behavior, ordering, or the shape of returned items, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation 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, front-loaded with the definition of fading knowledge, then the loop mechanic, then the determinism note. No filler, though the spaced-repetition framing is slightly verbose for a list tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description still conveys membership criteria, expected follow-up action, and the deterministic nature. Only the returned item shape and pagination remain unspecified, which is a modest gap for a filtered-list tool.

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%, so both limit and threshold are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description restates the threshold concept (

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 precisely what the tool surfaces: blocks whose retrievability decayed below threshold plus long-untouched open facts. This distinguishes it from siblings like lore_search or lore_timeline by content type, though it reads more as a description of results than a clean verb+resource.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance: 'review the list, then call lore_mark_used on anything still relevant — use is what reinforces stability.' It names the follow-up tool and the condition for using it. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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