perseus_remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that memory is 'persistent encrypted memory' surviving sessions, and notes idempotency per (category, key). This adds behavioral context beyond the input schema, though it omits details like rate limits or return format.

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 exceptionally concise: only two sentences. The first sentence precisely explains the tool's function, and the second provides usage guidance and the idempotency property. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core aspects: purpose, idempotency, and encryption. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., a confirmation), but the key behavioral traits are addressed. The sibling tools imply recall capability.

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% with parameter descriptions. The main description adds value by explaining idempotency behavior for key and category ('Re-using a key updates that memory'), and describing 'text' as 'in plain language.' This supplements the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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: 'Save a fact, decision, convention, or piece of context to persistent encrypted memory.' It specifies the verb 'save' and the resource 'persistent encrypted memory,' and provides concrete examples of what to save. This differentiates it from siblings like perseus_forget and perseus_recall.

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 advises when to call this tool: 'Call this whenever you learn something durable about the project.' It lists examples such as build commands and code style. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though the idempotency hint ('Idempotent per (category, key)') provides useful context.

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