Start a memory session

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the response is versioned and bounded, subject search does not repair the index, coverage is explicit, candidates never establish identity, and incomplete context requires further reading. No contradiction between description and 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?

Three dense but purposeful sentences with the primary call to action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of information already present in the schema or annotations.

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?

The description is largely complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool: it provides the entry-point signal, optional subject behavior, identity limitation, and pagination warning. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, though note_paths and domain semantics remain underexplained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clearly explains the subject parameter ('finds ranked candidates without repairing the index') and implies max_tokens/pagination via 'bounded live notes' and 'read next pages'. However, note_paths and domain receive no explicit semantic treatment, leaving a noticeable gap.

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 action ('Return the versioned common discipline, effective write capability and bounded live notes') and positions the tool as the entry point for memory-dependent work. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the resource and behavior are concrete enough to avoid confusion with note/search operations.

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?

'Start memory-dependent work here' gives a clear when-to-use signal, and the note about reading next pages before relying on incomplete context sets expectations for multi-page sessions. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is strong enough to route an agent.

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