corvid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies destruction, but does not disclose permanence, permissions, or side effects. For a simple deletion tool, this is minimally adequate but could be improved.

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?

One sentence of 12 words with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, delivering the essential information 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and where the id comes from. Minor improvement: note that deletion is permanent.

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 has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description adds context that the id comes from a previous recall/list result, which provides meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it does not specify format or constraints.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a memory') with specificity ('by its id'). It distinguishes from siblings: list_recent (list), recall (recall), remember (create).

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 context: 'from a previous recall/list result' suggests the id originates from those tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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 full burden. It states the basic action but lacks details like whether the tool is read-only, how results are ordered, or any side effects. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point with 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description omits important details like the return format, whether it returns metadata or full content, and how the 'limit' parameter affects results. The agent would need to infer or test this behavior.

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 has one optional parameter 'limit' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention 'limit' or explain its meaning, providing no added value beyond 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 'List', the resource 'memories', and the scope 'most recently stored/updated in this space'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'forget', 'recall', and 'remember' which are for deletion, retrieval, and storage respectively.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recall' or 'remember'. The description does not provide any context for appropriate use or exclusions.

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 explains the semantic matching behavior with an example, which goes beyond the tool's name. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it describe any potential side effects or return format, which would be expected given the absence of 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: the first defines the tool's core function, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence carries information without excessive length.

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 purpose, usage, and gives a concrete example, which is adequate for a simple search tool with no output schema. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning the return format (e.g., list of matching memories) but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand and 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds semantic value by illustrating how query should be phrased with the 'deployment' example, but doesn't add details about limit beyond 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 defines recall as 'Semantic search over your stored memories' and contrasts it with keyword search, using a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (remember, forget, list_recent) and identifies the specific resource (memories).

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 call it: 'at the start of a task, or whenever you might have prior context about the user, project, or topic.' It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools like list_recent for recent memories.

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 that the memory is durable and persists across sessions, which is key behavioral insight. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does well but could mention idempotency or storage 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 sentences, no extraneous information, and action is stated upfront. Every word 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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and lack of output schema required, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior sufficiently.

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 meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add significant additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('store'), the resource ('durable memory'), and the purpose ('persists across sessions'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'forget', 'list_recent', and 'recall' by focusing on storing facts long-term.

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 whenever the user tells you something worth remembering long-term', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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