memory_explain

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '查看' (view) implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation and the description usefully discloses the shape of the result (six-factor breakdown), but it says nothing about permissions, what happens if the id is unknown, or whether the computation is expensive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose stated first and the parenthetical output hint second; no filler. It is short enough that the only slight cost is that the parenthetical is the sole clue about what is returned.

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 one-parameter read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers both input intent (which memory) and output shape (six-factor importance breakdown), which is the key missing piece. Error behavior for an invalid id is the only notable gap.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as '记忆 id' in the schema. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing details beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: '查看某条记忆为什么是这个重要度' (view why a given memory has this importance level), and adds that the result is a six-factor breakdown. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as memory_stats (aggregate) and memory_recall (content retrieval), though it does not name those siblings directly.

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 intent (explain an importance score) implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over memory_stats or memory_recall, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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