memory

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

No annotations, so description carries burden. Discloses limit, ordering, and cost but does not confirm non-destructive read-only nature or other behavioral traits like rate limits.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. Main action stated first, followed by data ownership and cost details.

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?

Simple tool with no params and no output schema; description covers purpose, limits, and cost. Could mention output format but not required for minimal viability.

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 exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no param info but is unnecessary. Baseline of 4 applies as schema already sufficient.

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 explicitly states the tool exports all memories from the user's payer-wallet namespace, specifying limits (up to 1000, newest first). It clearly distinguishes from siblings (search, stats, write) by focusing on full export.

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?

Implies usage for exporting data, mentions cost. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but context of 'your data is yours' and sibling names provide implicit 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the search type (embedding similarity), return type (top-k), and cost ($0.002 per search). However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or if authentication is required, leaving gaps.

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. Every word contributes value (search type, namespace, return type, cost). 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 covers the main aspects: semantic search, namespace, top-k return, and cost. While it lacks details on embedding similarity and output format, it is sufficient for a simple search tool 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 50% with only 'k' described. The description adds context: 'max results (default 5, cap 20)' for k, and implies that 'query' is the search text. This compensates for missing schema descriptions for query, but doesn't specify query format or length.

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 'Semantic search over YOUR stored memories', specifying the resource (memories), action (search), and namespace constraint (payer-wallet). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_export, memory_stats, and memory_write.

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 retrieving relevant memories via semantic similarity and mentions cost. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the sibling names make the search purpose clear. Lacks explicit alternative guidance, but is still helpful.

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 discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Content is never returned on the free tier.' This clarifies that the tool does not expose sensitive data. With no annotations, this adds valuable context, though it could also mention idempotence or safety.

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: one short sentence with a leading tag 'FREE:' that immediately conveys the key information. Every word earns its place – no 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 tool has only one parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description is nearly complete. It mentions the returned data (count and timestamp) but lacks specifics on output format or error handling, which would be helpful.

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 parameter 'namespace' is described as 'wallet address'). The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 returns count and last-write timestamp for a wallet namespace. The verb 'count + last-write timestamp' is specific, and the resource 'wallet namespace' distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_export (exports full data) and memory_search (searches 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?

Usage is implied by the tool's purpose: use when you need stats only. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses permanent storage, namespacing, semantic indexing for search, and payment requirement. It does not contradict any annotations (none present). Key behaviors are clear.

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 fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds essential details (namespacing, indexing, cost). Every part is meaningful.

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 write tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, namespacing, and indexing. It does not explain the return value or how tags are used, but these are minor gaps given 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only 'content' has a description). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't explain 'tags' or provide format details for 'content'. The context about wallet and payment is useful but not tied to individual 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 'Store a memory permanently', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on writing, while siblings handle export, search, and stats. The namespacing and semantic indexing further clarify its role.

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?

Description provides context: namespaced to user's wallet and paid ($0.001 per write via x402). It implies when to use (writing) vs alternatives (search, export, stats). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or exclude scenarios.

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