celiums-memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it 'queries the module index, groups by category, returns a structured map with counts' and 'No parameters needed — returns the full network overview.' It explains what the tool does operationally, though it could add more on performance or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then lists use cases, and ends with behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (simple, parameterless query) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter info. However, it could briefly mention the return format (e.g., JSON structure) to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'No parameters needed,' which adds clarity beyond the empty schema, ensuring the agent understands this is a parameterless tool.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('browse', 'explore', 'discover', 'get an overview') and resource ('Celiums knowledge network organized by category'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns a structured map of categories with module counts and statistics, unlike tools like 'absorb' or 'recall' which imply different operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to explore what knowledge is available, discover categories, or get an overview of the knowledge base'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. This gives good guidance without full exclusion criteria.

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