memory_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state whether this is a read-only operation or if it has any side effects. While 'audit' implies non-mutating, the description does not explicitly confirm that, nor does it mention any auth requirements, performance implications, or what 'deep' entails in terms of behavior. The enumeration of metrics adds content but not transparency about operational effects.

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 key action ('Deep lifecycle audit') and then efficiently lists the specific audit dimensions. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what to expect. It lists many metrics but does not specify the return format (e.g., summary counts vs. detailed breakdown), whether it covers all memories or only a subset, or if there are any time-window restrictions. It is adequate for a high-level audit tool but leaves operational details unclear.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline rule for no parameters, this scores a 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning since there are none; it simply states what the audit reports.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Deep lifecycle audit' and enumerates specific components it covers (active/recycled counts, revised and emotional traces, conflicts, due now, average retrievability and importance). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'stats' or 'memory_status' by focusing on the full lifecycle with a comprehensive list of audit dimensions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when this deep audit is preferable to simpler tools like stats or memory_health, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely descriptive of the output, not prescriptive of usage.

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