mifactory-agent-memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation, implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the key doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

The description is extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without 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?

Given the complexity of a memory read operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error handling, or parameter meanings, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain what 'agentId' or 'key' represent, their formats, or how they relate to the memory system. No parameter semantics are provided beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to address the coverage 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 the action ('Read') and resource ('from agent memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'memory_write' by specifying a read operation rather than write. However, it doesn't specify what kind of data is read or the scope, keeping it from being fully specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing memory entry, nor does it contrast with other potential read operations. The only implicit context is that it's for reading rather than writing, but this is minimal 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Write to agent memory' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether writes are persistent or volatile, error handling (e.g., if agentId doesn't exist), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 phrase 'Write to agent memory', which is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use, such as explaining the memory model, return values, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with undocumented parameters and behavioral risks.

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 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (agentId, key, value) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what agentId refers to, how keys are structured, or what types of values are acceptable. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Write to agent memory' states the action (write) and target (agent memory), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what kind of data is written, how the memory is structured, or differentiate from its sibling 'memory_read' beyond the verb difference. This meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., agent existence), when not to use it (e.g., for reading), or compare to its sibling 'memory_read'. The description implies usage for writing but offers no contextual advice, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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