sqo_memory_vault

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses meaningful traits: persistence across sessions, SQLite FTS5 storage, BM25 ranking, and automatic SessionStart injection. Gaps remain for a mutation tool — whether 'remember' appends, dedupes, or overwrites an existing fact, and whether recall/list return ranked or raw records, are unstated.

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 dense sentences with the core identity front-loaded and zero filler; the parenthetical action aliases are efficient. The nested parentheses and exclamation slightly clutter an otherwise tight definition.

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?

Seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description must carry behavioral weight, and it covers identity and injection but not write semantics or return shape. It is minimally sufficient given full schema coverage, but thin for a persistent-storage tool.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description adds only the remember/recall/list verb mapping. It does not explain required combinations (e.g., query is effectively mandatory for recall, title/detail for remember) beyond what the enum and per-field descriptions provide.

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 ('SQLite FTS5 architectural memory bank') and specific verbs ('Store ... or BM25-query ... project facts'), so the agent knows it persists and retrieves project facts. It does not differentiate itself from sibling memory tools such as sqo_memory_graph or sqo_memo_cache, leaving the agent to guess which memory surface to use.

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 action names map to intent (remember to store, recall/list to query), and 'auto-injected at SessionStart!' hints at when the vault matters. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling memory graph, no when-not to use it, and no guidance on choosing recall over list.

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