forgotten

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the core behavior (finding keywords based on inactivity turns) and introduces the concept of decaying salience, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or exactly what constitutes 'keywords' or the output format. It is adequate but not highly transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and concept. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant information. Highly concise and structured.

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 3 parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and the tool's purpose, the description provides sufficient context for understanding what the tool does and when to use it. However, it does not describe the return value or output format, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already describes all three parameters with defaults and explanations. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'N turns' which maps to threshold, but schema already says 'Inactivity turns threshold'). Thus, description adds no extra value, baseline score 3.

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 clearly states the tool finds keywords not touched in N turns, with a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'keywords' (implied) and condition 'not touched in N turns'. It also introduces the concept of 'decaying salience', which distinguishes it from siblings like find_candidates or extract.

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?

Description says 'Useful for rediscovering lost concepts', which implies when to use, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mention alternatives among the siblings. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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