crewai_manage_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'reset' requires '--all flag or specific options' but does not detail side effects, permissions, or what happens during a reset or status check. This is minimal transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that first state the tool's purpose and then elaborate on the two actions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous content.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and full schema coverage for parameters, the description is largely complete. However, it could provide more context on what the 'status' action returns or what 'memory enabled' means, though the output schema may cover this.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds only the note about the '--all flag' for reset, which is helpful but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 manages CrewAI memory for a specific project and specifies two actions: reset and status. Although the verb 'manage' is generic, the actions clarify its purpose, and it differentiates from sibling tools focused on other aspects like project creation or agent definition.

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 gives context for when to use each action ('reset' to reset memories, 'status' to check memory enabled). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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