store_episodic_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it stores and indexes but does not reveal important details such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to duplicate content, or any limits on storage or indexing. The phrase 'index it for vector search' adds some context but is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence summary followed by a brief explanatory paragraph and an Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, the nature of episodic memory, event types, and all parameters. Minor gaps: absence of usage guidelines and behavioral traits, but overall adequately complete for a storage operation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter beyond the schema: content is described as 'The text content of the event', event_type lists valid values, session_id is optional, and metadata is a JSON string for extra fields. This adds significant semantic 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 the tool stores an event in episodic memory and indexes it for vector search. It defines episodic memory as a chronological log of things that happened, with explicit event types (idea, note, task, paper, meeting, agent_run), distinguishing it from sibling memory tools like store_semantic_memory and store_procedural_memory.

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 explains what episodic memory is and lists event types, implying usage for recording chronological events. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., store_semantic_memory, add_journal_entry) and does not mention any conditions or prerequisites.

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