lore_remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes the action as 'capture instantly' and mentions 'minimal effort', but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., persistence behavior, deduplication, or auth requirements). The description is too vague for a storage operation.

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, using short paragraphs and imperative tone. It front-loads the purpose and usage, but the motivational third paragraph is not strictly necessary. Overall, it is efficient.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 2 parameters and an output schema (present but unused in description). The description does not mention return values or confirm what happens after capture. It is adequate but could be more 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 description coverage is 100%, and the tool description adds no new information beyond what the schema already explains. The baseline score is 3, and the description does not justify a higher score.

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 uses the verb 'capture' and names the resource 'thought'/'fact', clearly indicating the tool's action. It distinguishes from siblings like lore_forget and lore_search by emphasizing 'one fact, one call' and storage rather than retrieval or deletion.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when you discover something worth keeping' with specific examples (decision, bug root cause, etc.). It implies when not to use it by contrasting with sibling tools, but does not provide explicit exclusions.

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