Memory health

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the tool being opt-in, gamified, and rewarding pruning over hoarding, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences plus a short line about arguments and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is reported (cleanliness score, stale candidates), the gamified nature, and the return structure. No additional information is needed.

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?

There are no parameters (0), and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description explicitly states 'Args: none', fulfilling the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 that the tool reports a cleanliness score and lists stale candidates. It uses specific verbs ('reports', 'lists') and identifies the resource (memory health). The gamified curation surface aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools like mindmap_prune or mindmap_tidy.

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 that the tool should be used to check memory health and find candidates for pruning, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like mindmap_audit, mindmap_prune, or mindmap_tidy. No explicit when-not or exclusions are provided.

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