check_memory_base_mismatch

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action without explaining what the check entails (e.g., whether it mutates data, requires specific permissions, or returns a report). The agent cannot infer side effects or outputs.

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, short sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant or extraneous text. Front-loaded with key verb and object.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at least hint at the output format (e.g., returns a boolean or list of mismatches). The current description leaves the agent guessing about what to do with the result.

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 single parameter (memory_base_id) is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning; it just restates the fact that the parameter identifies the memory base. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check') and resource ('a memory base') and clearly specifies two types of mismatches (configuration or embedding). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_memory_base or get_memory_base.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of expected outcomes. The description does not help an agent decide between this and other memory base tools.

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