palinode

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

The description says 'never hard-deletes' implying it is not destructive, but the annotations include destructiveHint: true, which indicates the tool may cause data loss. This is a contradiction. Although the description adds useful behavioral context (records reason, commits, keeps content auditable), the contradiction overrides and results in a score of 1.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds essential 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?

Covers key effects (archive, audit trail, supersedence, no hard-delete) and differentiates from re-saving. Lacks mention of error conditions (e.g., file not found) or prerequisites, but given the simple interface and rich annotations, it is mostly complete.

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%, adding meaningful context beyond raw schema: explains that superseded_by creates a SUPERSEDE rather than plain archive, and reason is recorded in history. This adds value beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 archives a single obsolete memory, using specific verbs ('retire', 'sets status: archived'). It distinguishes from re-saving with a tombstone and from sibling palinode_archive_expired (batch archiving). The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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?

Describes when to use (memory is wrong/obsolete) and provides a negative guideline ('instead of re-saving with a hand-written tombstone body'). Also explains when to use superseded_by for superseding vs plain archive. However, it does not explicitly compare to other sibling tools like palinode_delete or palinode_save, but the context is clear.

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

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

Expands on annotations: specifies deterministic, idempotent (consistent with idempotentHint), effect on status, persistence on disk, and dry_run preview. No contradiction with destructiveHint=true. Adds context beyond 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?

Two concise sentences front-loading the action. Every sentence provides essential info: what, effect, condition, and usage tip. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and simple mutation, description fully covers purpose, behavior, and parameter. Return value not needed; tool side effects are clear.

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?

Parameter dry_run is 100% schema-covered with description. Tool description repeats schema description without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Explicitly states it archives ephemeral memories with expired expires_at, referencing ADR-015. Distinguishes from sibling palinode_archive by specificity to TTL regime. Clear verb+resource scope.

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?

Clearly indicates when to use (expired memories). Implicitly distinguishes from palinode_archive (non-expired/memories), but lacks explicit exclusion or mention of alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the tool maps each line to the session or commit that created it. It does not describe output formatting or whether the claims flag changes the response, but there is no contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second clarifies the output granularity. The description is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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 read-only tool with 3 well-documented parameters and rich safety annotations, the description is largely complete. Since there is no output schema, the description does need to convey return semantics, and 'shows which session or commit created each line' does that. It could be more explicit about how the optional claims and search flags reshape the result, but the schema fills that 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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (file_path, search, claims) already has a meaningful schema description. The tool description adds little parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that file_path targets a memory file and that the result is line-oriented, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trace') with a clear resource ('a fact', 'each line in a memory file') and explains the outcome: showing which session or commit created a line. It evokes git-blame semantics, which helps distinguish it from general history or diff tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to know the provenance of a fact or line in a memory file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like palinode_trace or palinode_history, so the when-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable detail about preprocessing that strips wikilink syntax and '## See also' footers to avoid false positives, enhancing transparency beyond the 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?

The description is four sentences, with the core functionality immediately stated. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage, preprocessing detail. No unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema, the description could specify what the tool returns (e.g., list of file paths with scores). However, the purpose and usage are sufficiently clear for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but the mention of 'top-K' and 'semantically related' aligns with parameter purposes. No additional depth is provided.

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 function: find top-K semantically related files that are not linked via wikilinks. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on unlinked semantic relationships for wiki maintenance.

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 explicitly recommends use during 'wiki-maintenance passes' to surface implicit relationships. While it does not list alternative tools or contraindications, the context is clear and actionable.

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

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

The description goes beyond annotations by recommending dry_run=true for MCP invocation and noting the tool is destructive (via the schema parameter text). It discloses that dry_run previews operations without writing changes, adding safety context. However, it does not detail what consolidation actually does (e.g., merges, deletes, rewrites) or what side effects occur when applied, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately providing the key preview guidance. There is no redundant or filler wording. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented schema, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what a consolidation pass produces (e.g., a report, applied changes, or a diff). It relies on the schema for parameter context and the annotations for destructive safety, but for a destructive operation, more detail about the actual consolidation operations and consequences would be expected. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (dry_run, nightly, sources) having helpful descriptions that explain defaults and usage. The tool description itself adds no new parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It confirms the dry_run preview behavior but does not enrich beyond what schema already provides.

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 action ('Run a manual knowledge consolidation pass') with a clear resource ('knowledge consolidation'). The word 'manual' helps distinguish it from automatic passes, and the phrase distinguishes it from sibling tools like palinode_dedup_suggest or palinode_archive_expired. However, 'consolidation pass' is jargon and not fully explained, slightly reducing clarity.

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 this tool is for manually triggering consolidation when desired, and the dry_run recommendation provides a usage tip for safe previewing. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., automatic consolidation, dedup_suggest, archive_expired), nor any exclusions or conditions. Usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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

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

Adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: preprocessing strips wikilink syntax and auto-generated footer to avoid false positives, explains strong_dup flag meaning and recommended action. No contradiction with 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 sentences with efficient structure: purpose, usage guideline, preprocessing detail. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, return value (strong_dup), and preprocessing. Lacks return structure details, but given no output schema, it is adequate.

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 covers parameters fully (100%), but description adds meaning about output (strong_dup flag) which is not in schema, compensating for lack of output schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'return the top-K existing memory files whose embeddings are semantically near it', with specific verb+resource and distinct purpose from siblings like palinode_save or palinode_search.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use BEFORE writing a new memory to decide create new vs update existing', providing clear context. Doesn't mention when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it reads frontmatter from ProjectSnapshot files and explains the unblocked behavior, providing useful context beyond 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the primary function and add a secondary mode. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Covers the two main use cases adequately. No output schema, but description doesn't detail return format; however, for an agent selecting the tool, this is sufficient. Minor gap in describing error cases or edge conditions.

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% but the description adds meaningful context: slug is required unless unblocked=true, and unblocked returns slugs whose dependencies are done. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 returns dependency trees or unblocked items, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on dependency relationships, a unique function among many palinode 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use unblocked=true for actionable items, and implies slug for tree inspection. Lacks direct comparisons to sibling tools but offers clear usage context.

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

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

Annotations already convey read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) behavior. The description confirms it shows changes, aligning with annotations, but adds no additional behavioral disclosure beyond the basic read operation. Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: the first states the function, the second gives a usage directive. Every sentence is concise and relevant, with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and extensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's context. It explains the purpose and provides a typical use case. Some might expect a mention of the default days value, but that is already in the schema. Overall, it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Both parameters ('days' and 'paths') are fully described in the input schema with defaults and filtering semantics. The tool description does not add further meaning to these parameters, so it relies on the schema's 100% coverage. Baseline score of 3 applies as the description adds no extra parameter context.

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 shows recent memory changes with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('memories'). It provides context for what types of changes are relevant (learnings, decisions, facts). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like palinode_history, the usage hint suggests a focus on recent period, making the purpose clear.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use to review what was learned, decisions made, or facts updated in the last N days,' providing a concrete use case. It implies the tool is for recent changes but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. Nevertheless, the guidance is directly actionable.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds timing (<500ms), skipping details (network probes, canary writes), and specific checks. Good additional context, though return format not mentioned.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

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?

Lacks description of return values (no output schema). For a health check tool, knowing the response structure would be helpful, but the description covers what is checked.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it performs a fast health check, specifying what it checks (path integrity, config consistency, env-var drift) and distinguishes from sibling palinode_doctor_deep.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool first and to call palinode_doctor_deep when results are unclear, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Description adds useful context: execution time (10-15s) and includes canary write tests (not purely read-only despite hint). No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Clearly states purpose, timing, and usage guidance in a compact format.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential information: what it does, how long it takes, and when to use. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so no explanation needed. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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 it performs a full health check with network probes and canary write tests, taking 10-15s. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool palinode_doctor by being a deeper check.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when palinode_doctor reports unclear results or when verifying API, watcher, and service connectivity. Implies palinode_doctor as an alternative for lighter checks.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral disclosure is adequate but adds little beyond the two modes (list all vs. specific). No additional traits like pagination or rate limits are noted.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word is informative.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description is adequate but could elaborate on what memory files are or the response format. No output schema exists, so more detail would help.

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 covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage). The description mentions its effect briefly but adds no meaning beyond the schema's description.

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 lists all known entities or retrieves memory files for a specific entity. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('entities'), distinguishing it from siblings like palinode_search or palinode_list.

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?

Usage is implied: use to list entities or lookup files. However, no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among many sibling tools (e.g., palinode_search) are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds useful behavioral facts not present in the schema: 'Tracks renames (--follow)' and 'includes diff stats per commit.' There is no contradiction with the annotations. More detail on output ordering or pagination would be nice, but not necessary for this read operation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a behavioral note and one targeted usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the detail parameter's description in the input schema already explains the return structure for summary and full modes (hash/date/message/stats vs unified diff body). Combined with the tool description's rename tracking and diff stats, the agent has enough information to invoke and parse the tool. Minor details like ordering or pagination are not critical for this read-only history operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-documented: limit default, detail enum values, and file_path relative to the memory directory. The description mentions detail='full' but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 begins with 'Show the change history of a memory file,' a specific verb+resource that clearly orients the agent. It also adds distinctive behavior ('Tracks renames (--follow)', 'diff stats per commit') that separates it from related siblings like palinode_diff or palinode_blame, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 use case is clearly stated ('change history of a memory file'), and the instruction 'Use detail='full' for the commit-level evolution view' gives concrete guidance on parameter selection. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools or say when to choose history over blame/diff, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and potential external side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the specific 'save as research reference' context but does not detail error handling, idempotency, or other behaviors beyond the 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?

Single sentence with 12 words, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Excellent conciseness.

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 minimally adequate for a simple two-parameter tool with annotations. However, it lacks information about return values (no output schema), error handling, and the specific meaning of 'research reference' in the Palinode context. Given the number of sibling tools, more context could help differentiation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., what constitutes a 'research reference'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('fetch a URL and save it') and the resource ('research reference in Palinode memory'). It differentiates from siblings like palinode_save by specifying the external fetch aspect.

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 when to use it (when you want to import a web page) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the types of health issues scanned and that it returns a report, which aligns with annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence is informative.

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 no output schema, the description states it returns a report. Lacks details on report structure, but sufficient for a lint tool context.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information.

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 scans memory for specific health issues (orphaned files, stale active files, missing frontmatter, contradictions) and returns a report without modifications. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing the exact checks performed and emphasizing the read-only nature.

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 usage for health checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like palinode_doctor or palinode_orphan_repair. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about filtering but does not contradict annotations. It is not overly detailed beyond what annotations provide.

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 long with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and follows with the usage context.

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 simple listing tool with two optional parameters and rich annotations, the description is adequate but does not specify the output format or return value structure, which would be helpful given no output 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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions the filtering options but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'memory files', and the optional filters by category or core status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read' and 'search' by mentioning browsing before reading or searching.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to browse what memories exist before reading or searching.' This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context: it is used for broken links, returns existing files, and is safe for maintenance. No contradictions with 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?

Description is concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds necessary context without 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 no output schema, the description indicates the return type: existing memory files semantically near the link. It explains the tool's purpose for maintenance. Slightly missing explicit ordering or ranking info, but overall sufficient given parameter hints.

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% with descriptions. The description adds value beyond schema: it clarifies that broken_link accepts both [[name]] and bare name, and explains that min_similarity default is looser than dedup_suggest. This helps the agent understand parameter intent.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: given a wikilink to a missing file, return semantically near existing files. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dedup_suggest by specifying the context of orphan repair and the action of proposing redirects or creating new files.

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?

Explicitly mentions usage during 'wiki-maintenance passes' and describes two use cases: proposing a redirect or creating a missing file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, though the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds behavioral context: 'activate' deactivates others of the same task, indicating side effects. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing the deactivation behavior.

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-loading the main purpose and then detailing actions. Every sentence is essential, no 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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers all actions, parameter dependencies, and side effects (deactivation). It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining that 'name' is required for 'read' and 'activate', and 'task' is a filter for 'list'. It clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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: 'List, read, or activate versioned LLM prompts stored as memory files in the prompts/ directory.' It uses specific verbs (list, read, activate) and resource (prompts), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like doctor, list, etc.

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 provides clear context for each action: 'Use 'list' to browse available prompts, 'read' to view a specific prompt's content, or 'activate' to set a prompt version as active (deactivates others of the same task).' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the action enum itself covers the main choices.

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

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds the GitHub context but omits critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, error handling, or potential side effects (network calls). It provides moderate transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description is complete for a simple push action. It covers the essential purpose, though additional context about prerequisites (e.g., GitHub repo setup) would be beneficial.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when no parameters exist, as the description adds no further information.

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 syncs memory changes to GitHub for backup and cross-machine access. It uses a specific verb ('sync') and resource ('memory changes to GitHub'), and it distinguishes from local operations like palinode_save.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to push vs. save locally). There are 29 sibling tools, but no differentiation criteria are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds minimal context about returning full contents but doesn't elaborate on behavior beyond 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No redundant words.

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?

Adequate for a simple read tool with annotations and full schema coverage. Could mention return value format, but not critical given context signals.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (meta and file_path) fully. Description does not add new semantic information beyond what schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it reads full contents of a memory file. Distinguishes from siblings by suggesting use after list/search for viewing complete content.

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?

Explicitly says to use after palinode_list or palinode_search to see complete content. Provides clear context but doesn't list alternative tools for other operations.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — proposes, never applies', adding behavioral context about the nature of proposals. It also lists the health signals considered, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately address key behavioral and usage details. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, full annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage. It lists health signals and proposed operations, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns. However, the lack of any detail about the output format or structure (e.g., is it a list of proposals? JSON?) is a minor gap, but not critical given the advisory nature.

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 schema already describes the 'project' parameter with explanation of its meaning and default behavior. The description adds the instruction 'Omit `project` to review the whole store', which slightly clarifies usage but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: composing deterministic health signals for a project and proposing corrective operations. It uses specific verbs ('composes', 'proposes') and a resource ('project-memory review'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like palinode_doctor by its advisory and non-applying nature, and by listing specific health signals.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it is read-only and never applies changes, and it explains how to scope the review to a specific project or the whole store by omitting the 'project' parameter. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient for safe invocation.

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

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description adds valuable nuance by stating it is 'Safe' and explaining why: it creates a new commit and preserves the old version. 'Defaults to dry run' is also helpful behavioral context that goes beyond the annotation flags. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and the safety note plus dry-run default are packed into the second sentence without bloat.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, why it is safe, and its default dry-run behavior. The schema covers the remaining parameter details. It could be slightly more explicit about what a non-dry-run rollback actually changes, but the current description is still adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents file_path, commit, and dry_run, including the dry_run default and the commit source from palinode_history. The description mostly restates the revert/previous-version concept and adds no additional parameter-level nuance.

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 action and resource: 'Revert a memory file to a previous version.' It also adds key semantics like 'creates a new commit preserving the old version in history,' which clarifies the operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from palinode_history or palinode_diff.

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 no clear 'when to use this vs alternatives' guidance. The only indirect cue is in the schema where commit is described as coming from palinode_history, but the tool description itself does not explain when rollback should be chosen over other memory tools.

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

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

It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: save may commit despite a timeout, and duplicate risk on retry. This goes beyond the annotations, which only state readOnly/idempotent hints (false). It adds useful operational context without contradicting the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes the most critical usage constraint and a caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 (19 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core constraint and timeout edge case but omits broader behaviors like whether save is an upsert, what is returned, or how it interacts with existing memories. The schema fills parameter-level gaps, but the description alone doesn't fully document the save workflow.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has descriptive comments. The description only restates the mutual exclusion between `type` and `ps`, which is already in the schema. This is a baseline 3: schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds little extra meaning.

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 verb and resource: 'Save a memory... worth keeping across sessions.' It enumerates memory types (fact, decision, insight, project update), making the purpose concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like palinode_ingest or palinode_consolidate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite ('Requires exactly one of `type` or `ps=true`') and practical retry guidance ('On timeout... palinode_search a distinctive phrase before retrying'). This is clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't compare this tool against alternatives for general use, so not a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the direction is covered. The description adds the key behavioral nuance: results are ranked by semantic similarity, not exact match, and returns excerpts rather than full files by default. It does not reveal details like default daily-file penalization or threshold overrides, but it goes beyond the 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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the verb 'Search' and immediately convey purpose and high-level return format. There is no wordy or redundant phrasing, and it earns its place without repeating schema content.

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 tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, but the description reasonably scopes what the tool does and the main information needed: it returns relevant excerpts via semantic similarity. It does not describe the default threshold of daily-file handling, but the schema covers those details well. The description lacks a note about the optional full-content mode, but it is sufficiently complete for a search tool given the detailed 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 description coverage is 100%, and every parameter has a clear property description. The tool description does not add new meaning to the parameters—it only mentions the high-level search categories, which are partially mirrored by the enum values. This matches the baseline of 3 because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action (Search), the resource (Palinode memory), and the output (memory file excerpts ranked by semantic similarity). It also enumerates the types of context covered (people, projects, decisions, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools like palinode_read and palinode_list.

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 finding relevant context via semantic similarity, but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the when-to-use guidance implied rather than explicit.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing it writes to today's daily notes and appends status to project files. It doesn't mention commit/push behavior, but the schema's push parameter covers that, and the description does not contradict 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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and core action, then side effects, then user guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The description is sufficient for a session-ending tool with 7 parameters, given that the schema covers all parameter details. It explains the main side effects and what the user should provide, though it could mention the optional dry_run for testing but that is covered in the 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a brief mapping by mentioning 'accomplished, decisions made, and any blockers' to summary/decisions/blockers, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for parameters like push, source, or dry_run.

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 writes a session summary and appends status to project files, giving a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like palinode_save, relying on the name and title for differentiation.

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 explicitly says 'Call at the end of a coding or chat session', which is a clear temporal trigger. It does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the tool returns a 'bounded digest' and listing its components, but it does not contradict annotations. No side effects or additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations imply.

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 core purpose ('Session-start context'), and each sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('resolved project scope with... bounded digest'). It covers the essential aspects for a session init tool, though it could mention error handling or behavior on repeated calls, which is mitigated by the idempotent hint.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal information beyond what the schema already provides (default CWD behavior). The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 purpose ('Session-start context') and specifies that it should be called first in a new conversation. It also details the return content (project scope, session snapshots, core memories, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are not initialization 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 explicitly says 'call this FIRST in a new conversation,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling tool names imply that other tools are for different operations.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds specific health checks (API reachability, index stats, last watcher run), providing valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

Very concise single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Check Palinode health'). No unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter health check with good annotations. The description lists what is checked, but could improve by mentioning the output format (e.g., JSON status object).

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?

No parameters, so the description naturally does not need to explain them. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), and the tool's purpose is clear without parameter details.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks Palinode health, listing specific aspects: API reachability, index stats, last watcher run. This distinguishes it from siblings like palinode_doctor (likely more detailed) and palinode_doctor_deep.

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?

Implied use for quick health check but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. No alternatives mentioned. The description is sufficient for basic guidance but lacks explicit directives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. Description adds context about return fields and usage, consistent with 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?

Concise, two sentences plus a comparison. No fluff, well-structured, immediately conveys purpose and usage.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, when to use it, and return format. No gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'check' and resource 'wiki page coverage' for a topic phrase. Differentiates from sibling palinode_dedup_suggest by specifying input type and binary output.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use BEFORE ingesting new content' and contrasts with palinode_dedup_suggest, guiding when to use this tool vs alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' tag is redundant but consistent. The description adds value by revealing that rows with uncaptured provenance render an 'honest placeholder', a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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, using a single comma-separated list to enumerate output components and a separate sentence for the placeholder behavior. It ends with 'Read-only' which is slightly redundant given annotations, but overall efficient and front-loaded with the main action.

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 parameter, absence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its behavior. The placeholder disclosure adds completeness. No missing critical information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'file_path'. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 composes the 'full provenance lineage' of a memory file, listing specific components (source citations, timestamps, supersession trail, contradiction/evidence links, recall count). This verb+resource specification distinguishes it from sibling tools like palinode_blame or palinode_history, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides clear context on what the tool outputs and implies its use for viewing comprehensive provenance. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the specific mention of 'provenance lineage' and components gives sufficient guidance for an agent to select it over siblings.

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

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

Annotations are neutral (no readOnlyHint, etc.), and the description adds value by explaining the trigger mechanism and automatic injection. It does not detail permissions or failure modes, but overall provides sufficient behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second explains behavior. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Exemplary conciseness.

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 tool with no output schema, the description omits return values (e.g., what list returns). However, the parameter schema covers actions well, and the description gives enough to understand the tool's role. Slightly incomplete but still effective.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context by explaining how semantic matching triggers injection, which clarifies the role of parameters like 'description' and 'memory_file'. This extra context raises the score.

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: managing triggers that inject memory files upon semantic match. It distinguishes from siblings like palinode_list by focusing on trigger management.

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 explains the tool's function (setting up automatic memory injection) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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