gk_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a useful fallback (unknown action returns allowed list) and mentions 12 actions, but it doesn't explain whether operations are reads or writes, persistence effects, required permissions, or what side effects each action may have.

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 a single terse sentence with dense information, front-loading the domain. It could be better structured (e.g., separated lines), but it is efficient and doesn't waste words.

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?

The tool appears to be a general memory graph with 12 actions, yet the description lists only five and gives almost no context on what those actions accomplish or how results are returned. Having an output schema helps, but overall the description is too thin for the apparent complexity.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It says to pass 'action=' and 'optional args={}', and lists some action values, but it doesn't enumerate all 12 actions or provide per-action argument shapes, leaving the args object largely opaque.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Workflow memory graph' and lists concrete action names (lessons, marathon, query_graph, what_blocked, upsert_episode), giving a clear sense of the resource domain. It lacks an explicit verb like 'manage' or 'access', and doesn't differentiate from siblings, but the action list provides enough to infer its role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many gk_* siblings. No mention of appropriate contexts or exclusions; the description only explains mechanics, not decision criteria.

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