anneal-memory

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

With no annotations, description carries full disclosure burden and succeeds. It explicitly states the side effect 'Marks a wrap as in-progress', details the complex return structure (episodes, continuity file, stale warnings, compression instructions), and explains the cognitive purpose of the compression step.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and trigger conditions. Five sentences total, each earning its place—including the philosophical note about 'real thinking' which clarifies the abstract compression concept. Slightly verbose but justified given lack of output schema.

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?

Compensates well for missing annotations and output schema by describing return values and workflow. Covers domain concepts (episodes, continuity files, stale patterns). Minor gap: doesn't specify error conditions or in-progress state conflicts.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (max_chars and staleness_days). Description does not repeat parameter details, which is appropriate when the schema is self-documenting. Baseline score applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Prepare' with clear resource 'compression package for session wrap'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with save_continuity (which persists the data) and implying this handles session boundaries vs. ongoing recording.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: 'Call this at session boundaries — when work is ending, the user says to wrap up, or the session is getting long'. Also provides clear workflow sequence mentioning save_continuity as the required follow-up step, clarifying the tool chain.

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