goal_replay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions terms like 'reactivate overdue intentions' and 'score replay readiness' but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation mutates memory, requires auth, or has rate limits. The behavioral impact of 'reactivate' is ambiguous.

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 sentence with a clear front-loaded verb and purpose. It is relatively compact, though the academic citations add unnecessary length without functional value for tool invocation.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete for correct invocation. It leaves top_k, return format, and side effects unexplained, so an agent would lack critical details to use the tool safely and correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not add meaning for the two parameters. While 'goal' is hinted by 'goal-related memories,' the 'top_k' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its purpose.

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 the tool: 'Replay goal-related memories to plan the next move' with specific actions like 'recall evidence, extract past lessons, reactivate overdue intentions and score replay readiness.' This distinguishes it from siblings such as remember, recall, or plan by focusing on goal-related memory replay.

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 context is clear: use this tool to plan the next move via goal-related memory replay. It implies a planning scenario but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives among the many sibling tools, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-to-use vs alternatives' ideal.

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