memcp_consolidation_preview

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states 'Dry-run — no changes made,' which successfully indicates safety. However, it lacks details on behavior under extreme inputs, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a dry-run note, a clear sibling reference, and a cleanly formatted parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure facilitates quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool is a preview with an output schema (assumed to describe return values), the description covers the essential: purpose, dry-run nature, sibling relationship, and parameter explanations. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though additional notes on group formation criteria could help.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining parameters in an 'Args' section. It clarifies that threshold=0 uses default 0.85, limit is max groups, and project filters by project. These explanations add meaning beyond the schema, though they could be more detailed (e.g., valid ranges).

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: 'Preview groups of similar insights that could be merged.' It specifies the action (preview), resource (groups of similar insights), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'memcp_consolidate' by noting it's a dry-run and directing users to use the sibling for merging.

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 explicitly states the tool is a dry-run and advises 'Use memcp_consolidate to merge.' This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus the alternative. However, it doesn't elaborate on scenarios where this tool should be preferred or prerequisites.

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