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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only says 'Delete', which implies irreversibility, but fails to state this explicitly, required auth scopes, or if the deletion is soft or hard. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Could arguably add 'irreversibly' for transparency, but current length is efficient.

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 2 required params, 0% coverage, an output schema exists but is not referenced, and 7 siblings. The description is too minimal; it omits return value info, ID source hints, and deletion semantics. Incomplete for reliable agent selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'project' or 'point_id' represent, their formats, or any validation rules. The description adds no paramenter meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a single memory entry'), differentiated from siblings like memory_store or memory_search. The 'by ID' detail specifies the key identifier.

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?

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., memory_summarize_session might delete differently), no prerequisites for which IDs are valid, and no consequences like cascading effects.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states it retrieves content, but it does not disclose any side effects (none expected for get), permissions needed, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if point_id not found). The lack of annotations is mitigated by the read-only nature implied by 'Fetch', but more context on behavior would improve the score.

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 sentence, short and front-loaded with action and object. It contains no redundant information, earning its place. However, it lacks any additional detail that could make it more helpful without expanding much.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate for a basic retrieval. However, it leaves gaps: the 'project' parameter is unexplained, and the response format is not described (no output schema). A more complete description could clarify the project scope or that the full content is returned.

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 compensate. The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with 'point_id', but it does not explain the 'project' parameter's role or provide any context beyond what the schema already offers. The description adds minimal value, leaving the agent to infer the purpose of 'project'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('a single memory entry'), and specifies the retrieval mode ('full content by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search (searches) or memory_list_projects (lists), as it targets a single entry by a unique identifier.

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 is clear but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving a known memory entry by ID, but it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for partial content) or direct the agent to other tools like memory_search for lookup by content.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List all projects,' failing to disclose read-only nature, return format, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe agent usage.

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?

One concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action and target.

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 no output schema and low complexity, the description should clarify what is returned (list of project names? IDs?). It is adequate for a simple listing but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the output.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no param semantics, but none are needed.

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 lists 'all projects that have a memory collection,' using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like memory_store or memory_search, though it does not explicitly differentiate from memory_stats or memory_manifest.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., memory_stats might list stats). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the project does not exist, or any side effects (likely none). The verb 'Show' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 sentence, which is very concise. However, it is somewhat under-specified for a tool with no annotations and no param descriptions, so it leans slightly toward being too brief rather than optimally informative.

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 complexity (1 required param, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'areas/modules' mean, what the output format looks like, or how this differs from memory_stats. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 compensate for the single parameter 'project'. It does not explain what valid project values are, how to specify them (e.g., name, ID), or whether the parameter is case-sensitive. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'areas/modules present in a project's memory', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like memory_stats (which likely shows statistics) or memory_store (which stores data).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_stats or memory_search. The description does not provide context about what kind of memory overview this offers or when it is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It hints at token budgeting and a two-layer result structure, but it doesn't disclose what happens when the token budget is exceeded (truncation? sorting?), whether the tool is idempotent/read-only, or any rate-limit concerns. For a semantic search that returns multiple entries, key behavioral traits like ordering (by relevance?) and result format are underspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could improve clarity by unpacking jargon like 'full layers' and 'token-budgeted return', but it remains concise and scannable. A small structure improvement would be breaking into two sentences for readability.

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 high complexity (9 parameters, zero descriptions, no output schema), a one-line description is vastly insufficient. It omits the return format structure, ordering, how filters combine, and the role of the token budget. The agent cannot reliably determine how to craft calls or interpret results from this definition alone.

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% for the nine parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'query' and 'token-budgeted' (mapped to max_tokens) but fails to explain area, module, top_k, importance_min, time_range_start, time_range_end, or their interplay. Most parameters remain opaque to the agent, making effective invocation difficult.

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 identifies the tool as performing a semantic search over a project's memory with a token-budgeted return that includes both a summary and full layers. This distnguishes it from siblings like memory_get (exact retrieval) and memory_store (write), but it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is well-stated but could be strengthened by naming when to prefer this over other memory tools.

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 no guidance on when to use semantic search vs. the alternative memory tools like memory_get or memory_list_projects. It doesn't state prerequisites, restrictions (e.g., project must exist), or typical use cases. With seven siblings, explicit 'when to use' advice is missing.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes 'count, importance/area distribution, size' but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what permissions are required beyond 'Admin', whether any side effects occur, or if rate limits apply. The safety profile is only implied by the nature of 'stats'.

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—one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information ('Admin: collection stats') and then lists the statistics provided. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., specifying the parameter). It earns its place but is at the edge of under-specification.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the high-level output but omits the return format (e.g., object keys, data types) and any explanation of valid values for 'project'. With no output schema, the agent might need to guess the structure. The description is minimally complete for a stats retrieval but lacks enough detail for reliable invocation without domain knowledge.

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% for the single required parameter 'project'. The description does not explain what 'project' represents (e.g., project name, ID, or path) or how to use it. The phrase 'collection stats' loosely ties to the parameter, but the agent is left guessing whether 'project' refers to a project identifier or a collection name. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare type.

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: it provides admin-level collection statistics including count, importance/area distribution, and size. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list_projects (which lists projects) and memory_search (which searches within a collection). The verb 'stats' implies retrieval, and the resource is 'collection stats', making the intent unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The prefix 'Admin:' hints at restricted access, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites, user roles, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., memory_list_projects, memory_get) would be more appropriate. The agent receives no help in deciding between memory_stats and its siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions persistence but does not state whether this is a create or update operation, if it overwrites existing entries, or what idempotency guarantees exist. For a tool that stores data, these details are critical.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. It effectively conveys the core action, but could benefit from a second sentence to cover usage guidance or behavioral notes without being overly verbose.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify what the tool returns, how conflicts are handled, or how 'importance' is interpreted. The sibling tools suggest a rich system, but this description lacks enough detail for an agent to use it confidently.

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 needs to compensate. It mentions content, summary, importance, area, and module but adds no extra context (e.g., format, constraints, or relationships). The 'metadata' and 'importance' parameters lack any semantic explanation beyond what the schema provides.

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 it persists a memory entry and lists the key fields (content, condensed summary, importance, area/module). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like memory_search and memory_get, but could be more explicit about its unique role among the sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like memory_summarize_session or memory_manifest. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into the workflow.

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

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

The description only states 'store for later retrieval' without disclosing side effects like overwriting, idempotency, or dependencies. With no annotations, the bare description fails to convey behavioral traits beyond basic write operation.

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 sentence of 10 words, which is very concise. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points, examples) and does not earn its place by providing sufficient information for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 6 parameters (5 required), 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, expected output, or constraints, making it inadequate for correct tool invocation.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The agent receives no explanation for fields like project, area, observations, conclusion, session_id, or importance, leaving critical semantics ambiguous.

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 stores a condensed summary of a work session, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from generic memory_store by emphasizing session summaries, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like memory_store or memory_search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_store for raw data, memory_search for retrieval). The description lacks context for prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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