get_memory_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses return structure (success, summary) but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or scope (local vs global). Minimal behavioral insight beyond basic purpose.

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?

Description is short and to the point, using both Japanese and English. It covers the essential: what it does, arguments, and returns. Could be improved with more structure but is efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to clarify scope (local vs global memory) and has a parameter contradiction. Output schema covers returns, so no need for detailed return description.

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%, so description must compensate. It mentions caller_agent_id as required, but schema marks it optional. This contradiction is misleading. No other parameter details are given.

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 states 'Get memory summary information.' The verb + resource is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish between local and global memory, though a sibling tool exist (get_global_memory_summary) implying this is for local memory. Purpose is clear but could be more specific.

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 like get_global_memory_summary. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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