memra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior details by stating the result is 'priority-ordered memories' and framing the operation as loading/returning context, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, auth requirements, or 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, purposeful sentences with no redundant wording. The main action and the behavioral outcome are both front-loaded and every clause 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?

Given the output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description needs only to clarify when and why the tool is used, which it does. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this differs from sibling tools like memra_recall.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter sufficiently.

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 names a specific verb ('Load'), a specific resource ('agent bootstrap context from Memra'), and a clear invocation purpose ('agent session initialization'). This sets it apart from sibling memory operations such as memra_history or memra_recall.

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 states when to use the tool: during agent session initialization. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and the 'full content' vs. 'truncated' contrast discloses the key behavioral trait: the response is complete, unlike search results. The 'Get' verb signals a non-mutating read operation, so no side-effect or safety disclosure is needed. It does not cover not-found/error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple single-get tool.

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 zero filler: the first states the operation and its distinguishing feature, the second gives the use condition with rationale. The action verb and key differentiator are front-loaded, and every clause 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 single-parameter get tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The only omissions — where memory_id originates and not-found behavior — are minor given the tool's simplicity and the availability of a rich 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description merely echoes the 'by ID' mechanism already documented in the schema for memory_id. No additional format, sourcing, or validation semantics are added beyond the schema's 'The memory ID to retrieve.' The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does all 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 uses a specific verb plus resource: 'Get a single memory by ID with full content,' which precisely states the operation and its defining feature. It clearly differentiates from siblings like memra_list and memra_recall by emphasizing single-item retrieval with complete, untruncated content. Nothing is vague or tautological.

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?

'Use when you need the complete text of a memory' gives an explicit triggering condition for selecting this tool. The parenthetical '(search results are truncated)' explains why this tool exists and implies the alternative search/recall path, though it does not name a sibling tool explicitly or state when-not-to-use.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only 'View', returns every predecessor and successor, accepts any memory ID in the chain, and preserves chronological order. Minor gaps remain around error handling for invalid IDs, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concrete usage examples, then the input contract. Every sentence earns its place without 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 an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return fields. It fully explains the chain concept, input flexibility, ordering, and realistic audit scenarios, making the tool self-contained for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes memory_id as 'Any memory ID in the chain' with 100% schema coverage, so the description provides no additional parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that fact. 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?

States a specific verb ('View') and resource ('full supersession chain for a memory'), with ordering clarified as oldest to newest. Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like memra_supersede by focusing on audit/history rather than mutation.

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 use cases: auditing evolution, answering 'why did we change X?', understanding prior reasoning, or investigating superseded_by references. It gives clear context but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose paginated results and filtering options, which is useful, but it does not mention ordering, read-only semantics, or behavior when the namespace is empty or invalid.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and pagination/filtering behavior is stated efficiently.

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 is a straightforward list operation with a rich schema and output schema present. The description covers scope, pagination, and filtering; the schema already covers parameter details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents every parameter. The description adds only the high-level concepts of pagination and filtering without restating parameter meanings, which is acceptable but does not elevate beyond the baseline.

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 memories in Memra for a namespace, which identifies the verb and resource. It mentions pagination and filtering, helping distinguish it from get-type operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like memra_recall or memra_get.

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 browsing or filtering memories within a namespace, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over memra_get, memra_recall, or memra_history. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving some routing decisions to the agent.

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 notable behaviors: used_ids cause a permanent ranking boost, wait_for_revision blocks up to 5s, and max_tokens uses a chars/4 heuristic. Does not mention error conditions or side effects beyond these, but the key behavioral nuances are exposed.

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, compact sentence that conveys purpose and key differentiator without redundant filler. All supplementary information is placed in parameter descriptions where it belongs.

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?

Output schema is present, so return values are covered. The description explains critical behavioral parameters (used_ids, wait_for_revision) and mentions replacement of memra_search. It does not explicitly discuss error handling or contrast with memra_list/memra_get, but given the schema and output schema, it is reasonably 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% and parameter descriptions are detailed, including examples and heuristics (chars/4). The tool description itself adds little beyond the schema, but the schema is rich enough to fully explain 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?

Clear verb 'Search', specific object 'memories', method 'semantic similarity', and expected result 'ranked results by relevance'. Explicitly states it replaces memra_search, which differentiates it from that sibling.

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?

Mentions replacement of memra_search, giving clear direction on when to use. Parameter descriptions add usage context (e.g., used_ids as feedback, wait_for_revision for read-your-writes). Does not contrast with all sibling tools but enough 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a write side effect ('Store'), conditional mode behavior, and a non-obvious conflict outcome ('If the response contains conflicts[]...'). It could add more about idempotency/upsert semantics or permission requirements, but the conflict-resolution behavior is meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 dense sentences, with the most important 'Store' statement first, then a mode-by-mode breakdown, and finally the conflict-handling caveat. No filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a tool with 14 parameters, nested objects, and no required parameters in the schema, the description covers the main mode combinations and the key conflict follow-up. It relies on the schema for tag/mask/metadata details and an output schema for the response shape, which is reasonable; slight gap is not explicitly stating that non-special type values still use single mode.

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 71%, so the schema documents most properties. The description adds value by mapping parameters to modes: content+namespace for single, type=decision with optional context, type=pattern requiring title+steps, and entries[] for bulk. This helps an agent assemble parameter sets correctly without inferring the mode structure from the flat 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Store one or many memories in Memra.' It then enumerates the distinct modes (single, decision, pattern, bulk), which separates this creation tool from retrieval/maintenance siblings like memra_get, memra_list, and memra_supersede.

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?

It gives explicit mode-specific invocation rules ('Single mode: pass content + namespace', 'Pattern mode: pass type=pattern with title + steps + namespace', etc.) and names the alternative tool for conflicts: 'use memra_supersede on the outdated one instead of leaving both active.' This is strong when-to-use and when-not-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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the old memory is marked superseded, stops appearing in search, and that the new memory inherits type, importance, tags, source, and metadata unless overridden. It does not mention reversibility or audit/history behavior, but it is substantially transparent about the mutation semantics.

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. It front-loads the core action and outcome, then efficiently adds inheritance rules and usage guidance. 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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and five parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral context: supersession, inheritance, and when to use the tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It could state whether superseded memories remain visible in history, but the current description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 each parameter clearly. The description adds useful context by explaining that tags, metadata, and importance can override inherited values, but it provides no additional syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already covers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Replace a memory with new content') and resource, and distinguishes it from a create/add operation. It also describes the observable outcome: the old memory becomes superseded and stops appearing in search, and the new memory inherits properties. However, it references memra_add, which is not among the listed sibling tools, so differentiation from the actual sibling set is indirect.

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 to use this instead of memra_add when correcting or updating existing knowledge, which provides actionable selection criteria. It also states it works for all memory types. The main limitation is that it does not contrast with the actual listed siblings like memra_remember or memra_recall, so alternative selection guidance is incomplete.

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