MemOS

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes critical behavioral traits: the mandatory auto-invocation pattern ('AUTO-INVOKED: After every answer'), strict rules about what it can/cannot do (e.g., no modifications), and operational constraints ('CRITICAL: NEVER use this tool as part of a modification workaround'). It doesn't mention performance characteristics like rate limits or error handling, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. It uses clear section headers (Trigger, Purpose, STRICT RULES, Parameters, Notes), which helps organization. However, it contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating the mandatory execution in multiple places) and could be more streamlined. Every sentence earns its place, but the formatting could be more 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mandatory invocation pattern, strict rules about memory handling) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, triggers, strict operational rules, parameter expectations, and notes about client/orchestrator requirements. This is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool correctly in the broader system context.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that conversation_first_message is 'used to generate the user_id' (though schema says 'conversation_id'), and specifies that messages array must contain both user and assistant roles. However, these details are largely redundant with the schema's descriptions and required fields.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Save dialogue history (REQUIRED) and record NEW memories.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for new memories only, not modifications (unlike add_feedback) or deletions (unlike delete_memory). The verb 'save' and resource 'dialogue history/memories' are specific.

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 explicit when-to-use rules: 'MANDATORY EXECUTION: You MUST call this tool after EVERY single answer' and 'ALWAYS use this tool for NEW memories.' It also specifies when-not-to-use: 'FORBIDDEN: Do NOT use `add_feedback` or other tools for adding new memories' and 'FORBIDDEN: Do NOT use this tool to modify/update existing memories.' It names the alternative tool (add_feedback) and provides clear exclusions.

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