anneal-memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It comprehensively documents validation logic: structure checking (4 required sections), citation verification against real episodes, explanation overlap detection, citation gaming detection, and consequence handling (demotion of ungrounded graduations). Also specifies return values 'validation results and section sizes' despite lack of output schema. Minor gap: doesn't specify if this operation is idempotent or handles duplicates.

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?

Five information-dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with action+resource, followed by workflow context, input constraints, validation details, and return values. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose and the structure mirrors the invocation lifecycle.

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 validation-intensive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description admirably compensates by detailing complex validation logic and return value characteristics. Would benefit from explicit mention of error handling behavior or failure modes when validation fails, but otherwise comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% but the description adds crucial semantic detail by enumerating the exact 4 required section headers (## State, ## Patterns, ## Decisions, ## Context) that the schema only refers to generically as 'all 4 required sections'. This specificity is essential for correct invocation.

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 opens with specific verbs 'Validate and save' and identifies the exact resource 'compressed continuity file'. It explicitly references sibling tool 'prepare_wrap' to situate this tool in the workflow sequence, clearly distinguishing it from recall/record/status siblings.

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?

Contains explicit temporal guidance 'Call this after compressing your episodes' and cites the prerequisite sibling tool 'prepare_wrap'. Provides clear preconditions (must use prepare_wrap instructions first) and validates specific input structure, effectively establishing when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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