ad4m_optimize

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the dry_run behavior (report only vs. delete), but does not specify what the report contains, whether changes are permanent when dry_run is false, or any permission requirements. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the dry_run behavior. No extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for its purpose. However, it does not describe the return value or output format, which would help an agent interpret results. The description covers core functionality but lacks full context.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds specific context by mentioning 'duplicates and stale entries', which goes beyond the dry_run parameter's schema description. This helps the agent understand the tool's purpose for the parameters.

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 'Audit the memory graph for duplicates and stale entries', which specifies the verb (audit) and resource (memory graph). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ad4m_delete_memory (deletion) and ad4m_stats (statistics).

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 implies the tool is for cleanup of duplicates and stale entries, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like ad4m_delete_memory or ad4m_stats. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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