hebbrix_remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return shape (id, status, importance or error) and the effect of verbatim=True, but lacks details on side effects, permanence, or constraints like rate limits or storage limits.

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 very concise (four lines), front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description falls short of providing complete guidance. While the core purpose is clear, details about tags, collection_id, and potential constraints are missing, making it somewhat incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. Only the verbatim parameter is explained; tags, content, and collection_id are not described beyond their names. This leaves the agent with incomplete guidance for using the parameters correctly.

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 'Store a memory' as the primary action, and specifies when to use it: 'whenever the user shares a fact, decision, or preference worth recalling later.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hebbrix_list or hebbrix_update.

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 provides clear context for use and a style tip ('Prefer one clear fact per call'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies them.

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