Agent Brain

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false — the description adds meaningful context: that the tool writes up to 3 new memories back (mutation behavior), mentions the 8 MESH/call cost, and describes the full return fields. It adds value beyond annotations by explaining the memory-writeback side effect and pricing.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, includes a worked example, cost, sibling differentiation, input/output summary and return fields — no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place, though it is information-dense.

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?

Complete for a tool with a single parameter and no output schema: describes input, output fields, memory behavior, cost, and usage distinction. No output schema exists, so it appropriately enumerates return fields ({answer, reasoning, confidence, memories_considered, used_memories, learned, model}).

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% and the description adds semantic context for the 'think' parameter by explaining the flow (memories recalled first, conclusions stored automatically). The description reinforces schema meaning rather than duplicating it, which is appropriate given full coverage.

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 reasons over a question with persistent memory: recalls memory, reasons with Claude, writes back new memories. It specifically distinguishes from sibling 'agent-memory' which 'covers plain store/recall', and names sibling 'mesh_profile' as context. The verb+resource+scope is very 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('decisions that should build on what the agent already knows') and explicitly distinguishes from the alternative ('agent-memory covers plain store/recall'), naming the sibling tool. This is textbook usage guidance with an explicit when-to-use and alternative.

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