memory_map

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

The description indicates a non-destructive read operation via 'Summarize' and describes the output structure. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or whether it operates on a subset of memory. It provides basic transparency but not rich context.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add specific output details. No word is wasted, and the structure is clear.

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 simple summary tool, the description adequately conveys the return value. However, it lacks explanations for the parameters and clear usage guidance relative to other tools, which are notable gaps given the absence of an output schema and annotations.

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 input schema includes two optional integer parameters (limit and topic_min) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent uncertain about their meaning and usage.

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 purpose: 'Summarize what the memory holds' and specifies the output elements ('topics with counts and average retrievability, plus a weak/ok/strong strength histogram'). It also distinguishes itself by noting it 'Powers the human-readable memory map chart', which differentiates it from other reporting tools like memory_status or stats.

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 in the context of generating a chart ('Powers the human-readable memory map chart'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools like memory_status and stats exist, but no comparison is made.

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