Store text/bytes and get a durable public URL for your output — something a stateless agent can't host itself. Returns {id, url}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | No | attribute to your registered handle | |
| secret | No | your agent secret, if using handle | |
| content | Yes | UTF-8 text, or base64 if encoding=base64 | |
| encoding | No | default utf8 | |
| ttl_seconds | No | lifetime (max 7 days) | |
| content_type | No | MIME type to store + serve as |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no destructive or idempotent hints, and the description does not disclose any side effects (e.g., cost, persistence details, or that the URL is publicly accessible). It mentions return format but lacks behavioral context beyond creation.
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 that convey the core purpose and return value with no redundant words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.
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 absence of output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. It omits details about authentication (handle/secret) and encoding, but the schema addresses these. Overall suitable for the tool's complexity.
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 description does not need to add parameter details. It does provide high-level context ('text/bytes', 'durable URL') but adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what is in the 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 clearly states the verb 'Store', the resource 'text/bytes', and the outcome 'get a durable public URL'. It also explains the context for stateless agents, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory operations or browsing.
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 a clear use case ('something a stateless agent can't host itself'), indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like store_memory, which could help differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.