Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• memory_recall_contextB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds behavioral detail not present in the schema: it uses a greedy packing algorithm to fit the token budget and produces a ready-to-inject context block. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like ordering of memories, behavior with no results, or whether the output is plain text or structured, leaving some burden unaddressed given no annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action (returns most critical memories) and packs in the budget constraint and output format. No filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source for understanding return values and edge cases. It fails to specify what a 'context block' looks like, how memories are ordered, or what happens if no memories are found, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool that is meant to produce injectable context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only tokenBudget having a description. The tool description does not clarify the semantics of query or userId beyond calling it a 'query', leaving these parameters under-documented. The greedy/token-budget wording reinforces tokenBudget but does not compensate for the missing explanations of the other two parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it returns the most critical memories for a query, with a token budget constraint and a ready-to-inject context block output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search by emphasizing the context-injection purpose and budget optimization, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling comparator.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus memory_search, memory_write, or memory_forget. The description implies a use case for budget-constrained context injection, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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

• memory_forgetA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behaviors: merging, forgetting contradicted items, and decaying stale memories, which are meaningful side effects. However, it does not explicitly state irreversibility or whether a summary is returned, though the maintenance nature is clear.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Runs the maintenance pass') before elaborating on the effects. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a maintenance tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main operations well, but omits any return value or post-condition details (e.g., whether the operation is atomic, how success is reported). Given the lack of annotations, this is a moderate gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description does not mention the userId parameter at all, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). Since userId is self-explanatory, the parameter is understandable, but the tool description adds no guidance on how this parameter scopes the maintenance (e.g., per-user memory isolation).

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool runs a maintenance pass with specific effects: merging related memories, discarding contradicted items, and decaying stale low-importance memories. It distinguishes from siblings (write/search/recall) by focusing on consolidation and forgetting. The verb 'runs' plus resource 'memories' makes the purpose explicit.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives is provided. The description implies this is the maintenance action, and the title/name suggest forgetting, but it doesn't compare against memory_write or memory_search. Users must infer from the tool name that this is for cleanup.

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

• memory_searchA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does so effectively by disclosing that memories are re-ranked by similarity, importance, recency, and reinforcement, and that recalled memories are reinforced—a non-obvious side effect. It does not mention return format or error behavior, but the disclosed ranking and reinforcement are strong behavioral details.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The entire description is one focused sentence that packs in the key purpose, technical approach, ranking factors, and side-effect without filler. It is front-loaded and every element contributes to understanding.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must serve as the primary context source. It covers purpose, ranking behavior, and the reinforcement side-effect, but it does not explain what the search returns or how this relates to memory_recall_context. This leaves some gaps given the absence of other structured context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (k and recencyDays). The overall description mentions "recency," which loosely connects to the recencyDays parameter, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly identifies the tool as performing semantic search over a user's memories, with specific details about the ranking mechanism (similarity, importance, recency, and reinforcement). This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_write or memory_forget, which are clearly write/delete operations, and from memory_recall_context, which is likely a different retrieval approach.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies that this tool is for semantic search scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling memory_recall_context. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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

• memory_writeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add useful context by explaining that Bedrock automatically derives a summary, tags, salience, and kind. However, it does not disclose whether the write is idempotent, how duplicates are handled, or what the return value is, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value. No repetition or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what, when, and how of usage well. It lacks return value and error handling details, but for a straightforward write tool with clear usage guidance, it is reasonably complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance by giving examples of content (preference, fact, commitment, event) and clarifying that salience is derived by default unless overridden. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool persists something worth remembering about a user, with a specific verb ('persist') and resource ('memory'). It lists content types (preference, fact, commitment, event), which distinguishes it from siblings like memory_search and memory_forget.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this whenever the user reveals durable information you should recall in future sessions.' This is clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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