memory_audit

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly discloses non-modification and specifies the scope as file/index integrity, which is valuable safety-relevant context. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter audit the core behavioral trait is adequately disclosed.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key non-modification caveat. Every word earns its place, with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 parameters, the description is nearly complete for invocation: it states what the tool checks and its side-effect profile. The main gap is the lack of detail about return values or behavior when integrity issues are found, but that is not essential for an agent to select and invoke a zero-argument audit.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description need not add parameter detail, and the schema description coverage is effectively complete. The description also confirms the tool requires no configuration.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('file/index integrity'), and explicitly frames the operation as non-modifying. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that mutate memory, such as memory_forget and memory_supersede, and from memory_read which would retrieve content rather than audit integrity. The purpose is immediately apparent.

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 implies use when a read-only integrity check is needed and the 'without modifying memory' qualifier suggests it is safe to run. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as memory_reindex for repairing integrity issues or memory_read for retrieving memory content. Usage routing is left mostly to inference.

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