dream

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'replays' memories and 'strengthens patterns', which may imply mutation, but it does not clarify if the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The description mentions outputs but not behavioral traits like rate limits or permission needs.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value: first explains what the tool does, second lists return types. Highly concise.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and outputs, but given no annotations and no output schema, it misses behavioral details and potential side effects. For a tool with two simple parameters, it is adequate but not fully 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions outputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics well.

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 the tool triggers memory dreaming on recent memories to discover connections and insights. It uses a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('recent memories'), and lists outputs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cross_reference or explore_connections.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a clear decision rule.

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