memory.analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add a useful contract, that the aggregate is closed and deterministic and that SQL is never accepted, which signals a safe, contained operation. However, it never states whether the tool is read-only, what limits exist, or how results are shaped, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 short and contains no filler, and the 'arbitrary SQL is never accepted' qualifier is a real, front-loaded constraint. It loses a point because the phrase 'closed deterministic aggregate' is dense jargon and would benefit from one concrete elaboration or example.

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 tool with 15 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, a single sentence cannot possibly cover the operational semantics of intents, filters, grouping, and periods. The output schema explains return shape only, not when or how to combine parameters correctly.

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% and the description explains none of the 15 parameters, from intent and field to group_by, period, and the various workspace/filter IDs. The agent is forced to infer semantics purely from parameter names and enum values, so the description adds no value here.

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 states that the tool runs a closed deterministic aggregate, which identifies it as a memory analytics operation and separates it from retrieval-style siblings like memory.read and memory.search. However, the wording 'closed deterministic aggregate' is jargon and doesn't concretely specify what statistics are produced or over which memory records.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use memory.analyze rather than memory.read or memory.search, nor any context about when the analytics intents in the schema are relevant. The only usage constraint is negative (no arbitrary SQL), which does not help an agent decide between the sibling tools.

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