thesis_memo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a local, non-destructive write. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the output artifacts and the destination path (TORUS_HOME/memos). However, it omits whether an existing memo is overwritten, whether a new file is created per call, and any failure behavior for an unknown thesis_id.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the artifacts and the content outline. The parenthetical content list is dense but each item tells the agent what the memo will contain, so little is wasted.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive export tool with an output schema and annotations present, the description covers what is produced and where it lands. The remaining omission is overwrite/idempotency behavior, which matters for a file-writing tool but is a modest gap given the other structured signals.

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 0% and the single parameter `thesis_id` is undocumented in both schema and description. The name is largely self-explanatory and consistent with sibling tools, so the practical risk is low, but the description adds no meaning such as format, source of the ID, or whether the thesis must already be tracked.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Write a thesis up as a memo') and enumerates the artifacts produced (Markdown plus a standalone HTML page) along with the sections it covers. The one gap is sibling differentiation: it never contrasts itself with nearby tools like `brief`, `digest`, or `thesis_weak_points`, which also summarize a thesis.

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 says what the tool does but never says when to reach for it versus `brief` or `digest`, nor any preconditions (e.g. thesis must exist, must have evidence). Usage is only weakly inferable from the phrase 'write a thesis up as a memo'.

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