run_maintenance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It names the actions ('memory promotion and confidence decay') but does not explain side effects, whether changes are destructive, or any prerequisites. This is insufficient for a maintenance tool that likely mutates the knowledge graph.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a returns section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant 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 no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage frequency, and return type. It is complete for a simple maintenance tool.

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 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist.

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 function: 'Run maintenance tasks: memory promotion and confidence decay.' This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_memory or reinforce_concept, which perform individual operations rather than a batch maintenance routine.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Should be called periodically (e.g., daily) to keep the knowledge graph and memory system healthy.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, which would warrant a 5.

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