schema_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides some algorithmic detail (grouping criteria) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output is generated, or any limitations.

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 conveying the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, the phrase 'primary cue' and the citation add some density, making it slightly less clear than ideal.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the description lacks essential information about return values, how limit affects results, and the precise meaning of 'primary cue.' No output schema or annotations exist, so the description is the only source and it is insufficient.

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 single 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and the schema provides no description for it. With 0% schema coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning and effect entirely unexplained.

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 groups memories into topic schemas based on specific criteria (cluster size, average importance, kind mix, samples). It identifies a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling report tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus other reporting tools like similarity_report or association_report. The description only defines what the tool does without providing usage context or exclusions.

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