agent_memory

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

Annotations provide no safety or behavioral hints (all false), so the description must convey behavior. It states that memory is persistent and cross-agent ('what one agent learns, any agent can recall'), which is useful. However, it doesn't describe side effects of storing (e.g., overwrite, conflict resolution, retention policy) or any auth/rate limits. The description is transparent about the core functionality but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 and front-loaded with the core concept ('Cross-agent persistent memory'). It efficiently conveys the purpose and provides a clear call to action with two examples. Every word earns its place, no fluff or repetition.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotation hints, the description must fully explain how the tool operates. It says 'store' and 'recall' but fails to specify how the agent provides the content or key for storage, what the return format is, or how memory is organized. The lack of operational detail makes the tool difficult to use correctly without further context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. With no parameters to explain, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters. The description makes no claims about parameters, which is fine.

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 purpose: it provides cross-agent persistent memory for storing and recalling information. It names specific content types (discovery, decision, warning) and a use case (recall prior context). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_context' or 'decision_memory', which could have overlapping functionality.

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 gives some usage guidance: 'Call to store a discovery, decision, or warning, or to recall prior context before starting work.' This suggests when to use it, but it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'get_context' or 'decision_memory'. The guidance is implied rather than being definitive about selection criteria.

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