life_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the grouping mechanism and specific output metrics, plus a theoretical reference, giving a clear behavioral model. However, it doesn't mention edge cases or limitations such as handling of very large stores or non-trace content.

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, dense sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, then uses a colon to efficiently list output attributes. Every element earns its place.

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?

The output schema is absent, so the description must explain return values; it does list the key output components. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics leaves a significant gap, making the tool only partially usable without guessing about 'limit' and 'period_days'.

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%, and the description makes no mention of 'limit' or 'period_days'. Although 'time buckets' hints at period_days, there is no explicit connection. Users have no guidance on how these parameters affect the summary.

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's function: 'Summarize the store as lifetime periods' and details the method (group episodic traces into time buckets) and output contents (event counts, top themes, average importance, highlights). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall' or 'timeline_report'.

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 summarizing memory traces into a life story, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'session_summary' or 'timeline_report'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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