memory_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a report (non-destructive detection) rather than mutation, which is useful, but it says nothing about whether detected junk is altered, what permissions are needed, scope of cost/latency, or whether results are paginated.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single noun-phrase fragment with no front-loaded statement of action, scope, or result. Nothing is wasted, but very little is delivered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a no-annotation tool the description should cover the namespace scope and the read-only/non-destructive nature of the audit. Both are absent, leaving the definition too thin to call confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'namespace' parameter, and the description never mentions namespace at all. Its only clue is the default 'default', so the agent gets no meaning, format, or scoping guidance for the one input it must supply.

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 fragment 'Junk report: duplicates, contradictions, orphans, stale facts' tells an agent this surfaces memory quality defects, which distinguishes it from the mutating siblings memory_correct/memory_retract and from memory_search. But there is no verb and no explicit statement that this is an audit/diagnostic read, so the purpose is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent must guess whether this runs before or after corrections, and nothing routes it against memory_search or the correction tools.

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