memory_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It mentions auditing categories but does not state whether the tool is read-only or produces a report, whether it modifies memory, or what side effects occur. The write_report parameter hints at report generation but is not explained, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that lists audit dimensions efficiently without redundancy or filler. Every phrase adds meaning, and the length is appropriate for the scope of a comprehensive audit tool.

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?

The description lacks essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly. There is no mention of how results are returned, whether a report is written (despite the write_report parameter), or what actions an agent should take based on audit findings. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to support autonomous invocation.

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 completely omits the only parameter, write_report. The schema provides the name and default, but no meaning or effect is disclosed. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's role.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and clearly identifies the resource ('canonical memory') while enumerating precise audit categories (stale active notes, duplicate aliases, identity conflicts, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_status, which focus on retrieval or status rather than comprehensive auditing.

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 implies the tool is used when a systematic audit of memory health is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it. There are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned, so usage context is only inferred from the verb and scope.

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