memory_ingest_project

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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds deterministic behavior and the output format, but it does not disclose side effects such as writing to memory, whether existing facts are overwritten, or any operational requirements. It adds some context without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and includes only meaningful qualifiers ('deterministically', 'compact', 'no model summary'), making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool that is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), with no output schema and two parameters whose semantics are unexplained, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain where the EIR/1 facts are stored, how results are returned, what the size/file limits control, or how idempotency manifests. An agent would need to guess key operational details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It only implies that 'project' maps to project_root and says nothing about max_files or max_file_bytes, leaving the agent to guess what these limits do. This is minimal compensation and insufficient for two of the three parameters.

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 clearly states a specific action (deterministically scanning a project) and output (EIR/1 facts and dependency edges). It also distinguishes itself from model-based siblings like memory_remember by explicitly stating no model summary is used, so an agent can tell what this tool does relative to the family.

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 implies usage for deterministic project scanning by contrasting with model summaries, but it never explicitly names when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_remember or memory_engineering_context, nor does it mention when not to use it. This is implied guidance, not explicit.

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