memory_surprise

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions novelty scoring and contradictions but does not detail side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if memories are absent. The output format is unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Score') and clearly states purpose and output interpretation. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., numeric score, range). It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., that memories must exist). The tool's relation to sibling memory tools is implied but not clarified.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'content' by linking it to novelty evaluation, but the schema already describes it similarly. It does not mention 'user_id', which is documented in schema defaults. Minimal added value.

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 it scores novelty/surprise of new content relative to existing memories, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_recall (which retrieves memories) and memory_extract (which extracts entities) by focusing on novelty evaluation.

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 gives a clear use case: evaluating novelty. It implies when to use but does not provide explicit when-not or mention alternatives like memory_recall for retrieving similar memories. The high scores indication helps but lacks exclusion criteria.

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