memory_share

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, authorization requirements, or the impact of sharing. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about important behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section provides parameter info efficiently. However, the docstring-like formatting is slightly awkward but still effective.

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 the complexity (multiple actions) and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'stats' or 'import' do, and it conflicts with the schema by implying note_id is only required for 'share', while schema marks it always required. More context is needed for safe operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: note_id as 'Memory to share (required for share action)', share_with as 'Target agent ID (for share action)', and action as enumerating 'list | share | import | stats'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's names, but some parameters (like import, stats) lack details.

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: sharing memories or viewing the shared pool. It lists specific actions (list, share, import, stats), making the verb and resource clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling memory tools.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided, and no sibling tool comparisons are mentioned.

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