agtrepo-memory

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core effect (extends TTL, max lifetime) and the payment requirement. It does not mention side effects, errors, or edge cases (e.g., id not found), but the primary behavior is transparent. Given the lack of annotations, it carries the full burden and could be more detailed.

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. It packs the essential action, constraint, and requirement without any fluff or redundancy. Information is front-loaded, making it 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?

The description covers the purpose, effect, and requirement, which is sufficient for a simple one-parameter mutation. However, it omits explanation of the 'id' parameter and does not mention any output or return value. Since the schema provides no additional detail, this leaves some ambiguity for the 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 only parameter 'id' has no schema description, and the tool description does not clarify what it refers to (though it implies a memory identifier). Without explicit context, an agent might not know exactly what id to supply, making this a notable gap.

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 verb ('extends') and resource ('memory's TTL'), with concrete details (by 30 days, max 365 days from creation). It distinguishes this from siblings like read_memory or store_persistent_memory by focusing on the TTL extension action.

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool (when extending a memory's TTL) and mentions a requirement (x402 payment). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the operation is distinct enough that 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?

Description discloses the payment requirement and the non-mutating nature of 'Reads'. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and handles it well, though it does not mention side effects or return behavior explicitly.

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, no redundancy, and all essential information is presented 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?

Sufficient for a simple read operation, but lacks details about the return value or error conditions. Since no output schema is provided, some information about what the tool returns would improve completeness, though it is not strictly required for 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?

The single parameter 'id' is clearly implied as the identifier of the memory to read. The description adds context ('encrypted memory') that helps interpret the parameter, even though no detailed format or constraints are given.

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 the action ('Reads'), the resource ('encrypted memory'), and the required parameter ('id'). Distinct from sibling tools like 'store_persistent_memory' or 'extend_memory'.

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 retrieving a memory by ID, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives. The payment requirement is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 for behavioral transparency. It does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, failure behavior, or what happens with invalid signatures. It only states what the action is, not its broader behavior or guarantees.

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 unnecessary fluff. It packs the key action, recipient, and proof mechanism 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin for full context. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, the return value, error cases, or how this interacts with the other memory-related tools.

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 0% and no parameter descriptions are provided. The description partially explains id, readerPubKey, and timestamp by including them in the EIP-191 signature format, but wrappedKey and signature are not defined beyond their names.

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 specific action: a creator registers a wrapped content key for a specific reader's public key, with proof via an EIP-191 signature. This distinguishes it well from the sibling tools such as read_memory, extend_memory, store_persistent_memory, and share_memory_key.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies use by a creator for registering a key release, but there is no direct comparison with share_memory_key or other 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, permissions, costs, or return behavior. It mentions 'Free.' and describes the release action, but it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what authorization is needed, or what the caller should expect afterward.

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 and well-structured, packing the key behavior, the target object, and the two usage modes into a single sentence without unnecessary detail.

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 gives enough context to understand the basic operation and the two relevant scenarios, but it omits details about expected outputs, failure modes, or prerequisite state beyond 'previously creator-registered.' Overall it is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the prose must clarify id and readerPubKey. The description implies readerPubKey identifies the reader and id identifies the registered key/document, but it does not explicitly define either parameter or explain how they interact in the public-document case.

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 ('Releases') and the target ('a previously creator-registered wrapped key to a reader, or the raw content key for a public document'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like register_key_release by focusing on the sharing/release action, though the exact relationship to those siblings is not fully explicit.

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 the tool—after a creator has registered a wrapped key, or for public documents—but it does not explicitly state conditions or contrast with alternatives such as register_key_release. Guidance is present but indirect.

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 explicitly discloses the automatic x402 payment challenge completion, which is a significant behavioral side effect. It also indicates a write operation (stores) and size constraints, offering transparency beyond the bare parameters.

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, directly stating the core functionality and the payment side effect without redundant or ambiguous wording.

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 primary purpose, size limit, and payment behavior, but omits details about the tags parameter, expected return value, or potential errors. Given the absence of an output schema, this leaves meaningful gaps in agent expectations.

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?

Only ciphertext has any descriptive semantics (from both the schema and tool description), while tags lacks any description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema for ciphertext and none for tags, so parameter coverage is insufficient.

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 (stores encrypted text memory), the format (base64 ciphertext), and the size limit. It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose despite not explicitly contrasting with siblings.

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 does not indicate when to use this tool over its siblings (extend_memory, read_memory, etc.). It mentions an automatic payment side effect but provides no decision guidance for alternative selection.

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