forgetting_risk

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains the ranking logic but does not disclose whether this tool is read-only or has side effects, what the output format is, or how the 'limit' parameter affects behavior. The intent is clear, but side effects and return behavior are unaddressed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and criterion. It contains no filler, but the formula 'importance x forgetting' is slightly terse and could be expanded without adding waste.

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 with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how 'limit' works, or when to use this tool compared to the many sibling review/ranking tools. The core purpose is complete, but operational details are missing.

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 schema has one parameter, 'limit', with zero schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention 'limit' at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The parameter's semantics (e.g., max number of results, threshold) remain entirely ambiguous.

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: 'Rank memories by forgetting risk' with a defined formula ('importance x forgetting') and a clear purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like review_due or practice_report by focusing specifically on risk-prioritization for review.

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 phrase 'the riskiest ones should be reviewed first' implies the tool is for prioritizing review order, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied, not elaborated.

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