Metis · Memory Curator — Store Episodic Memory

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

The description discloses that the tool logs a time-stamped event, indexes it for vector search, and returns a TextContent with row id and type, or errors for missing dependencies or write failures. While it covers key behaviors, it could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., that it is a write operation). No annotation contradiction.

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 brief intro, usage guidance, parameter descriptions, and return value. Every sentence contributes value without 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 complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, return value, and error conditions. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter: content (text), event_type (enumerates options), session_id (optional), metadata (JSON with extras). It adds value beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly mention that content is required or the default values for event_type and session_id.

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 stores an event in episodic memory and indexes it for vector search. It distinguishes itself from siblings like store_semantic_memory and add_memory_entry, and provides concrete examples of event types, making the purpose clear and 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 includes explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For a distilled, timeless concept/definition use store_semantic_memory; for a human-curated palace note use add_memory_entry.' It also clarifies that episodic memory is a chronological log, helping agents decide appropriate use.

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