validate_memo

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns validity and schema errors, and explicitly states limitations (does not score truthfulness, retrieve sources, or rewrite). This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's boundaries.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no superfluous information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return value (validity and schema errors). It also clarifies exclusions. With one well-documented parameter and clear behavioral boundaries, the description is complete for this validation tool.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds 'Parsed Agenda memo JSON object' which is consistent but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's description.

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 explicitly states 'Validate an Agenda memo against agenda-memo.schema.json', using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by stating what it does not do (score truthfulness, retrieve sources, rewrite). This clearly separates it from 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 explicit usage context: 'Use after a host model or external process drafts a memo and before treating it as an Agenda Intelligence artifact.' While it does not name specific alternatives, the constraints on what it does not do implicitly guide when not to use it.

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