aiworkhub_dashboard_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantive detail: it opens the repository memory SQLite database in read-only mode and never increments access counters or mutates rows. That is real behavioral context about side effects a caller might otherwise worry about, not a restatement of the annotation.

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, both front-loaded: the read-only scope and resource come first, then the alternative routing. Every clause carries information, and there is no redundant repetition of the schema.

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-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and the non-mutation guarantee. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is already documented with its default and 1..500 clamp. The description only implies ordering via 'newest' and adds no syntax or format information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (list), resource (newest canonical AI Memory entries) and scope (active repository) in the first line. It also names the sibling tools that cover adjacent data (sessions, Knowledge Base), so an agent can distinguish this from aiworkhub_dashboard_sessions and aiworkhub_dashboard_kb without reading either schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to browse stored AI Memory rows and lifecycle statuses in the dashboard' and then names the alternatives for sessions and KB entries. The routing condition is stated directly rather than left implied.

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