memory_report

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it is built deterministically from stored records with no LLM, include_llm_summary opts into an LLM paragraph, every item carries source IDs, periods use the local timezone, and save=true writes Markdown to a concrete path. This also explains why readOnlyHint is false (it can write files) while remaining non-destructive and idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and period semantics, then sections, then save behavior and usage trigger. Dense but each clause carries information; the heavy semicolon chaining makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideal definition.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description effectively documents the return content (section list, source IDs, deltas vs previous equal period) as well as side effects (save path) and timezone behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tz, save, limit, since/until, format, offset, period and project. The description restates period/offset semantics that the schema already carries (day/week/month/all/custom, offset=-1 = previous period) without adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Activity report for a project (or all projects) over a period,' then enumerates the exact sections produced (summary deltas, decisions, solutions, errors, next steps, files, entities, timeline). This is clearly distinguishable from memory_timeline, memory_stats and memory_perf_report without opening their schemas.

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 names the triggering intents: 'Use it when the user asks what happened, for a status/progress report, a weekly summary or a retrospective.' Clear context for use, but no exclusions or named alternative tools for overlapping cases (e.g. memory_timeline vs this report).

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