remember

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers two concrete behavioral facts: memories are stored at user (cross-project) vs project scope, and duplicates with similarity >0.95 overwrite the existing entry rather than creating a new one. That upsert/dedup semantics is genuinely actionable. It still omits permissions, whether an overwrite is destructive, and what is returned.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the storage/dedup qualifiers. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the complete absence of annotations.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers storage scope and dedup behavior but is silent on the return value (e.g. an ID), permission requirements, and whether an update replaces prior tags or content. Adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 100%, with the schema itself carrying rich parameter detail (Markdown content rules for commands/steps, tag list, scope enum). The description only adds the gloss that "user" means cross-project, which is a marginal clarification over the schema's bare "作用域".

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?

"存入一条记忆" gives a specific verb (store) and resource (a memory), immediately distinguishing it from recall/forget/status siblings. However it never explicitly contrasts itself with auto_save, which is the closest sibling and could plausibly also persist content.

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 states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing remember over auto_save, and no prerequisites such as required tags or scope selection. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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