Check memory use

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that the tool decides based on intended_use types and that for external/destructive actions it requires user_confirmation provenance. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with usage guidelines. No extraneous 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It covers intended_use but omits the other parameters and does not describe return values or behavior when memory does not justify use. Completeness is adequate but not strong.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'intended_use' parameter (listing possible values) but does not clarify 'query', 'limit', 'namespace', or 'acting_agent'. This leaves significant gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('decide') and resource ('whether recalled memory may justify the intended use'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'audit_use' and 'check_forbidden_action' by focusing on memory justification.

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 guidance on when to use: it states that external/destructive actions require user_confirmation provenance; otherwise ask the user first. This helps with usage context, though it could also mention when not to use.

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