memory_manage

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 implies mutation (store, delete) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or output format. The mention of 'delete' hints at destructive behavior, but without details the agent cannot anticipate consequences.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's core actions. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or repetition. It is optimally concise for the high-level purpose it conveys.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and multiple actions, the description gives no information about which parameters are required for each action, what the output looks like, or any operational constraints. The output schema exists but its content is not shown, and the description does not compensate. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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%, but the description's list of verbs ('search', 'store', 'list', 'delete', 'export', 'profile') effectively documents the possible values for the required 'action' parameter. However, other parameters (kind, limit, query, content, memory_id) are left unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 function with specific verbs (search, store, list, delete, export, profile) on the resource 'memory'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like council_run and system_status, which are unrelated operations. The verb list is concrete and actionable.

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 lists possible actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose one action over another. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context like whether memory management is preferred over other tools for specific tasks.

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