memory_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'discovers' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose permissions, rate limits, or any behavioral constraints. Some context is provided but incomplete.

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 with no waste: first lists what the tool does, second gives usage guidance. However, it uses jargon ('ambient usage loop') which slightly impacts clarity. Efficient overall.

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?

No output schema, so the description should describe return values. It mentions discovering capabilities, usage loop, etc., but does not specify the format or structure of the output. Also, parameter effects on output are not explained. Given the complexity (multiple memory siblings), the description provides a starting point but lacks completeness.

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 50%: current_task has a description in schema, session_id does not. The description adds no additional meaning for either parameter; it does not explain how to use session_id or how current_task affects behavior. The description fails to compensate for the gap in schema coverage.

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 uses 'discover' as a specific verb and lists what is discovered (capabilities, usage loop, tool profile, callable tools). It provides a clear purpose and differentiates from siblings by referencing memory_checkout as the front door, though the relationship could be clearer.

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 advises calling 'at session start or whenever tool awareness is unclear,' providing clear context. Mentions memory_checkout as the front door, suggesting a distinction, but does not give explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond that.

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