Agent memory

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent), and the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral trait that memories are persistent and shared across agents. It says nothing about expiry semantics, result volume, or what 'recall' returns, which the annotations do not cover.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the defining capability followed by the usage instruction. The 'what one agent learns, any agent can recall' clause earns its place by conveying the cross-agent scope that is the tool's whole point.

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 13 parameters fully documented in the schema, no output schema, and annotations carrying safety hints, the description covers the essential read/write duality adequately. It is slightly thin on how the four actions differ in results and on the persistence/expiry model, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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%, and every parameter is already documented in the schema with per-action hints, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., interplay of query/tags/limit or action-specific parameter usage) beyond what the schema 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 names a specific resource (cross-agent persistent memory) and the two core verbs (store, recall), so an agent immediately knows this tool reads and writes shared memory. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as decision_memory, get_context, or what_should_i_know, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives concrete usage context on both sides: 'store a discovery, decision, or warning' and 'recall prior context before starting work.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it offers no exclusions or explicit routing to the sibling memory tools, so it does not reach 5.

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