consolidation_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: three phases with timings, division of labor (server prepares, host reasons), and that it does not persist. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with bullet points for phases and return keys, front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly tighter but every sentence adds value.

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 complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers inputs, phases, return dict structure, and interaction with the host model. Fully complete.

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 a description for the sole parameter 'scope'. The description repeats 'Scope to consolidate. Auto-detected if omitted.' adding minimal value beyond the schema. The overall context helps but not directly for parameter semantics.

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 finds memories due for consolidation across a 3-phase pipeline, with specific phases and return types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remember/update/forget by emphasizing it is read-only and only returns candidates.

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?

Explicitly says 'Read-only: yes. Only returns candidates. The host model must explicitly call remember/update/forget to persist.' This tells when to use (to get candidates) and when not (for writing results).

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