Metis · Memory Curator — Store Procedural Memory

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the parameters but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, idempotency, auth requirements). For a write operation, this 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 with minimal redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clear args list. No unnecessary sentences, though structuring could be slightly improved.

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?

The description covers the basics for a store operation, but lacks details on output (though output schema exists), error behavior, and constraints like uniqueness. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description compensates well. It adds examples, specifies Markdown format for steps, and clarifies the trigger context purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a successful workflow pattern in procedural memory and explains what procedural memory means. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools store_episodic_memory or store_semantic_memory, which could cause confusion.

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 implies when to use (for repeatable processes, workflows that worked well) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it differs from alternative memory stores. No contrast with siblings.

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