explain_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure. It says what facets are explained but not whether this is read-only, what the output looks like, or whether lineage resolution is expensive. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it reads as a feature list rather than a usable definition.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with an undocumented id, the description omits return format, read/write nature, and any cost or permission context. An agent can guess the purpose but not the contract.

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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should ideally clarify what the id refers to. It doesn't — the word 'memory' is the only hint. Baseline for a single trivial param is not particularly low, but the 0% coverage leaves the id format unexplained.

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?

State a specific verb (Explain) and resource (a memory), listing the facets returned: state, history, dependencies, dependents, and replacement lineage. It is distinguishable from siblings like recall or audit_memory, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from them.

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 rather than recall or audit_memory, both of which sound adjacent. The description implies diagnostic usage but provides no conditions or exclusions.

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