expand_memory

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is ambiguous. The description adds the concept of a tiered response and expansion via an expandable ID, but it does not disclose side effects, whether 'expand' modifies stored content, or any prerequisites. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the behavioral context remains thin.

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 with the phase marker front-loaded. It is concise, free of filler, and lets the key concept ('expandable ID') stand out immediately.

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 has no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'expand' returns, how the optional section and includeContext parameters affect the result, or what a tiered response looks like. An agent cannot fully judge the outcome or whether it has all necessary inputs, making the definition incomplete.

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 each parameter already described (e.g., 'Expandable ID from a tiered response'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the mechanism, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Retrieve and expand stored content') and identifies the unique resource ('tiered response' with an expandable ID). It distinguishes itself from a sibling like expand_analysis_section by referencing the tiered-response workflow, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'Phase 3' prefix implies a workflow stage, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as expand_analysis_section or memory_loading. An agent must infer the intended context from the phrase 'tiered response,' which is not stated as a usage rule.

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