opencode_store_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the persistence behavior ('remembers it in future sessions'), which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose potential edge cases such as overwriting existing memories, size limits, or how tags affect retrieval. This is minimal viable transparency but not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Store a fact...') and then provides concrete use examples. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple tool with only two parameters, both documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, persistence semantics, and use cases, which is sufficient for the tool's complexity. It lacks an explicit note about return values or success indication, but given the simplicity and the output schema being absent, it's nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (content, tags), so the baseline is 3. The description adds illustrative examples of content types ('fact, decision, convention, or code snippet') but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. It provides no extra syntax, formatting, or relationship context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store') and clearly names the resource (facts, decisions, conventions, code snippets) while explicitly stating the outcome: the agent remembers it in future sessions. It also provides concrete examples (architecture decisions, naming conventions) that distinguish it from sibling tools like search, recall, stats, and clear.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('Use for things like...') with specific examples (architecture decisions, naming conventions, gotchas, user preferences). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the full exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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