Recent session-compression summaries

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the data source (claude-mem) and the conditional 'if installed', implying the tool may yield nothing on an unconfigured system. It stops short of describing ordering, freshness windows, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single short sentence with the source and the conditional caveat front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in purpose and parameter coverage rather than being a virtue in itself.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, so the main omissions are usage routing and parameter meaning. For a one-optional-parameter read tool this is minimally viable, but an agent still cannot tell how this differs from goldfish_recall.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing. It never states that 'limit' bounds the number of summaries returned or what the default of 5 means in practice; 'recent' is the only sizing hint and it is vague.

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 phrase names the resource (session-compression summaries from claude-mem) but supplies no verb, leaving it ambiguous whether it lists, fetches, or filters them. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like goldfish_recall or goldfish_search, which plausibly return similar memory content.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names an alternative among the six siblings. The 'if installed' clause hints at a precondition but does not say when an agent should prefer this over goldfish_recall or goldfish_search.

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