context_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full disclosure duty. It reveals that facts are 'queued for review with high trust' and labels the evidence as HUMAN_ATTESTED, giving the agent a clear picture of what happens post-call. It doesn't mention other side effects, but for a capture-like tool this level of transparency is strong.

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 appropriately dense and well-front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose—purpose, timing, triggers, exclusions, and outcome. It loses a point for minor redundancy ('Call this IMMEDIATELY' and 'don't wait for session end' are somewhat repetitive), but overall it remains efficient.

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?

For a simple capture tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what to capture, when to capture, when to skip, and what happens after. The schema's rich property descriptions fill in the rest. A minor gap is not explicitly stating what should happen if multiple facts appear at once, but that's not critical for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage providing a solid baseline, the description adds substantial value by mapping natural language triggers to enum values ('we always X' → CONVENTION) and offering a concrete example for the `statement` field. This goes well beyond what the schema alone provides, making the trigger logic and statement formulation unambiguous.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Capture a durable fact the USER just stated in chat.' It distinguishes itself from sibling memory tools by scoping to user-stated codebase knowledge. The inclusion of concrete trigger phrases ('we use X because Y', 'never do X') makes the tool's exact purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with 'ALWAYS trigger on' plus examples, and an explicit exclusion ('Skip task-specific requests'). However, it does not name alternative tools to use in the exclusion case, only says to skip, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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