万忆触发STORE钩子

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it explains that the tool archives and reflects, extracting decisions, patterns, skills, and postmortems. However, it does not disclose side effects such as persistence, overwriting, or whether reflection results are stored separately, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loads the hook type and core action. It is not bloated, though the 'HOOK-STORE / HOOK-REFLECT' prefix partly repeats the tool name.

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 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the mode parameter, what a successful call returns, prerequisites, or how this hook relates to the sibling LOAD hook and other memory 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of decisions, patterns, skills, and postmortems mirrors existing parameter names but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('归档 + 反思') and identifies the target artifacts ('决策、模式、技能、复盘'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from the LOAD hook by the STORE/REFLECT framing, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast.

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 scopes usage to '会话结束时' (at session end), which is a clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like LOAD hooks, but the timing guidance is practical and sufficient.

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