memento_cognitive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states actions and their intents (e.g., 'align (goal check)') but fails to explain side effects, state changes, or limitations. For example, 'warnings (spider-sense)' is ambiguous—does it check something? Does it modify state? The description lacks details on error conditions, idempotency, or required setup.

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—two lines, front-loaded with the core concept ('Cognitive engine') followed by a colon and a bullet-like list of actions. Each action gets a one-word hint. There is no extraneous text. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines), it efficiently conveys the gist.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 5 parameters with low schema coverage, and four distinct actions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or use cases. For example, 'tasks (auto-generate)' is vague—what tasks? Based on what? The lack of any output description or further context makes the tool under-specified for an agent to use correctly.

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 40% (2 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning to the 'action' enum by associating each value with a one-word explanation (e.g., 'dream (creative insight)'), supplementing the schema's pure enum list. However, the parameters 'active_context' and 'workspace_root' are completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions elsewhere.

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 states it's a 'cognitive engine' and lists four actions with brief explanations (dream, align, warnings, tasks). Each action has a one-word hint (e.g., 'creative insight'). This clearly communicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that have different names like memento_search or memento_remember. However, it doesn't explain how these actions relate to each other or what the tool outputs.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., memento_search, memento_remember). There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or examples. The description only lists available actions without explaining the decision criteria for choosing one action over another or when this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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