verify_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors (extraction, flagging stale dates) and states that it returns heuristics for LLM/operator action. However, it does not clarify if the tool modifies memory or has side effects, leaving some behavioral intent unclear.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main action, listing specific extractions, and noting a paired prompt. It is efficient with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks details on return structure or example output, but the mention of 'verification heuristics' provides sufficient context for this level of complexity.

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 single parameter 'name' is documented in the schema with description 'The memory's name slug'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for this parameter, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 purpose: re-evaluate memory claims and extract signals like URLs, dates, and file paths. It differentiates from siblings like 'audit' by specifying it verifies memory-specific content, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other verification tools.

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 mentions pairing with 'audit_stale prompt', implying a context of use, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_action' or 'audit'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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