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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: soft-deletion (not permanent), tombstone creation, history preservation, undeletion capability, and auto-prefixing behavior. It also references memstate_history for viewing deletions. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about permissions or error conditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections, uses bold headings for emphasis, includes practical examples, and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a tool with important behavioral nuances and sibling distinctions.

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's complexity (soft-deletion with history preservation), the description provides comprehensive context. With no annotations but an output schema present, it covers behavioral aspects thoroughly while appropriately deferring return value details to the output schema. It addresses key sibling relationships and usage scenarios.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by providing concrete examples with project_id='myapp' and showing recursive behavior, but doesn't significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond what the schema already documents clearly.

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 specific action ('soft-delete a memory by keypath') and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it creates tombstone versions and preserves history. It explicitly contrasts with memstate_set and memstate_remember for updating 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 includes explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' and 'NOT FOR' sections that provide clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions specific scenarios (removing outdated memories, cleaning up subtrees) and names alternative tools for different use cases.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a soft-delete (not permanent), creates tombstone versions for all memories, preserves history, hides the project from listings, and can be restored by creating a new project with the same ID. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers the essential destructive nature and recovery mechanism adequately.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. The 'USE THIS WHEN' section is helpful but slightly repetitive of the purpose. The example usage is concise and adds clarity. Minor improvements could tighten it, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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's complexity (destructive operation with recovery), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters adequately, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly without over-explaining.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example usage (memstate_delete_project(project_id='old-project')) which clarifies the parameter's role in context, though it doesn't add deep semantic details beyond what the schema already states ('Required. Project ID to soft-delete.').

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 specific action ('soft-delete an entire project and all its memories') and distinguishes it from siblings like memstate_delete (which likely deletes individual memories) by specifying it affects the entire project. It explains the outcome (creates tombstone versions, preserves history, hides from listings) which clarifies the scope beyond just the name.

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?

It includes an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' section that provides clear guidance: 'You want to remove all memories for a project, e.g. cleaning up test data or decommissioning a project.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, with practical examples.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context. It explains that 'Keypath is auto-prefixed' and 'Default recursive=true', which are important behavioral traits not evident from the schema alone. It also provides example usage patterns showing different parameter combinations and their 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 well-structured with clear sections, bullet points for examples, and zero wasted text. Every sentence serves a purpose: establishing context, providing usage guidelines, showing examples, and noting important defaults. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and complex usage patterns.

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's complexity (7 parameters, multiple usage patterns) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, guidelines, behavioral traits, and provides concrete examples. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it adequately addresses the tool's scope and limitations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value through the usage examples that show how parameters combine (e.g., project_id alone vs. with keypath, include_content=true), but doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's already documented in the schema descriptions.

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: 'Browse and retrieve memories' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with memstate_remember (for saving markdown/summaries) and memstate_set (for one keypath value), making the distinction clear.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use BEFORE starting tasks to fetch existing knowledge' and includes dedicated 'USE THIS WHEN:' and 'NOT FOR:' sections. It names specific alternatives (memstate_remember, memstate_set) and gives concrete scenarios for when to use this tool (list projects, browse project tree, get content at keypath).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns 'all versions with timestamps' and marks the latest with 'is_latest=true.' However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, pagination, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a read operation with historical data.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, examples, and return details. Every sentence adds value—no waste. The use of bold headers and code examples improves readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, and it adequately addresses the context provided by sibling tools and schema coverage.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying parameter semantics: it explains that 'project_id' is 'Required with keypath' (though this is also in the schema) and provides example usage with both 'keypath' and 'memory_id', showing how they are used alternatively. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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: 'View version history for a keypath or memory chain.' It specifies the verb ('view') and resource ('version history'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (memstate_get for current content, memstate_remember/memstate_set for saving). This is specific and avoids tautology.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines with dedicated sections: 'USE THIS WHEN:' lists debugging, auditing, and recovery scenarios, and 'NOT FOR:' explicitly names when not to use it (reading current content or saving) and specifies alternative tools (memstate_get, memstate_remember, memstate_set). This gives clear context and exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: content limit (100,000 chars), async processing with timing (~15-18s), immediate job_id return, automatic project creation, and server-side organization/conflict detection/versioning. It doesn't mention error conditions or retry behavior, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections, front-loaded key information, and every sentence adds value. It uses bold headings for guidance, includes practical examples, and provides critical constraints without unnecessary elaboration.

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's complexity (async processing, automatic extraction), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, constraints, and examples, making it complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it reinforces content limits and provides example values in the code snippets, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema already documents well.

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: 'Save markdown, task summaries, or any text' with server-side extraction of keypaths and structured memory creation. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating this is the 'PREFERRED way to save information' and contrasting with memstate_set for specific keypath assignments.

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 provides explicit guidance with dedicated 'USE THIS WHEN:' and 'NOT FOR:' sections, listing specific use cases (task summaries, meeting notes, docs) and clear exclusions (setting one specific keypath to short values). It names the alternative tool (memstate_set) for excluded scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a search tool (implied read-only), returns summaries with similarity scores, and requires memstate_get to fetch full content. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs, which could be relevant for a search tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the initial statement, usage guidelines, examples, and instructions for fetching full content. It uses bold formatting effectively without being verbose, and there's no wasted text.

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's complexity (semantic search with 6 parameters), no annotations, but with a rich input schema (100% coverage) and output schema (confirmed present), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, and result handling well. The main gap is lack of explicit behavioral details like error conditions or performance characteristics, but the output schema likely covers return values.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it only mentions 'query' and 'project_id' in examples. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't provide additional meaningful context about parameters.

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: 'Find memories by meaning (semantic search).' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('memories'), and method ('semantic search'), and distinguishes it from siblings by contrasting with exact keypath searches. The title being null doesn't detract from this clarity.

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 provides explicit guidance with 'USE THIS WHEN:' and 'NOT FOR:' sections, clearly stating when to use this tool (for semantic search when exact keypath is unknown) and when to use alternatives (memstate_remember for saving content, memstate_set for one keypath value). It also mentions using it 'BEFORE starting tasks' for context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers well. It discloses key behavioral traits: value limit (2,000 chars), auto-prefixing of keypath, and that it's for storage/mutation (implied by 'set'). It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic function.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It opens with the core purpose, provides clear usage guidelines in dedicated sections, includes practical examples, and adds important constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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's moderate complexity (storage operation with 5 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, constraints, and provides examples. The output schema means return values don't need explanation in the description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it reinforces that value should be 'short, simple values only' and provides concrete examples of keypath usage. However, it doesn't explain the optional 'category' parameter's purpose or provide guidance on when to use topics.

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: 'Set one keypath to a short value' with specific examples of what to store (config, status, version numbers). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling memstate_remember by stating 'Only for simple key=value facts' and 'NOT FOR: Task summaries, markdown, or text with multiple facts.'

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 provides explicit usage guidance with dedicated sections: 'USE THIS WHEN:' for appropriate scenarios (storing one specific value at known keypath) and 'NOT FOR:' for exclusions (task summaries, markdown, multi-fact text). It names the alternative tool (memstate_remember) and includes a value length threshold (2,000 chars) for when to switch tools.

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