Rememb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Save a new memory entry,' which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 highly concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the complexity of a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits like side effects. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the purpose of 'section' or 'tags' in context). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('a new memory entry'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from its siblings like rememb_edit or rememb_init, which likely also involve memory operations.

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 provides some usage guidance with 'Use this when you learn something worth remembering,' which implies a context for application. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like rememb_edit (for updates) or rememb_init (for initialization), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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