memory_index_passages

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is iterative (repeat until remaining=0) and that it builds indexes, implying a state-changing operation. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether it overwrites existing indexes, performance implications, or what 'remaining' refers to. The iterative hint is useful but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, both information-dense and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The repeat instruction is a necessary operational detail. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be slightly clearer about the parameter name (after_id vs next_after_id).

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotation support, the description gives the core workflow (build indexes, paginate with after_id) but omits what 'remaining' means, how results are returned, and what happens if the tool is called without prior setup. It is adequate for a simple paginated indexing tool but leaves gaps around return values and side effects.

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 all three parameters. It mentions 'next_after_id' in the repeat instruction, which maps to the after_id parameter, but it does not explain limit or project semantics. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Build') and resource ('local passage indexes') and connects it to evidence searches, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_recall or memory_search_fast. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative or clarify what 'local' means relative to other indexing tools like memory_graph_index or memory_rebuild_fts.

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 a clear when-to-use signal: 'before evidence searches.' It also provides an explicit repeat instruction ('Repeat using next_after_id until remaining=0'), which is actionable usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for pre-search indexing.

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