iranti

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 returns 'operating rules plus prioritized relevant memory,' may include 'a backfill suggestion' for durable facts not in shared memory, and explains the postCompaction parameter's effect ('rules are only sent once per context window'). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, provides clear usage guidelines, explains behavioral aspects, and distinguishes from alternatives—all in 7 concise sentences that each earn their place.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining purpose, usage, and key behaviors. It covers the tool's role in the workflow and distinguishes it from siblings. The main gap is the lack of output format details (what 'operating rules' and 'prioritized relevant memory' look like), which would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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 some context about the postCompaction parameter ('Omit on normal mid-session handshake calls — rules are only sent once per context window'), but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema descriptions already state.

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: 'Initialize or refresh an agent's working-memory brief for the current task.' It specifies the verb (initialize/refresh), resource (working-memory brief), and distinguishes it from sibling iranti_attend by explicitly stating 'Do not use this as a per-turn retrieval tool; use iranti_attend.'

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 on when to use this tool: 'Call this at session start or when a new task begins' and 'If your host does not support a true session-start hook, call this on the first user turn before you start answering recall-style questions.' It also clearly states when NOT to use it: 'Do not use this as a per-turn retrieval tool; use iranti_attend.'

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