memory_full_triage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining tool behavior. It discloses the use of Rust and Python engines and the production of an executive summary, but omits details about side effects, prerequisites, or performance implications. It provides a reasonable overview but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence contributes meaning. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity, the description adequately covers its purpose and outputs. Without an output schema, it effectively communicates the executive summary contents. It could mention the impact of quick_scan on results, but that detail is present in the parameter schema.

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%—both parameters (image_path and quick_scan) are described in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific value, but the schema fully compensates, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('Run complete automated triage') and resource ('memory dump'), establishing a clear purpose. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the comprehensive, automated triage scope and specifying outputs (executive summary, risk level, findings, IOCs).

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 for full triage but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over more specialized siblings like memory_analyze_image or memory_extract_credentials. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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