store_semantic_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only covers purpose and parameters, with no mention of whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or any side effects. For a write tool, this is a significant gap, earning a 2.

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 very concise: a one-liner purpose, a brief context sentence, and a structured Args list. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the core purpose and all parameters well. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether the tool updates existing concepts or strictly creates new ones, and any prerequisites for use. Still overall adequate for a storage tool with good parameter docs.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage (no descriptions in schema). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in a clear Args section, including example values (e.g., 'RDT sensitivity' for concept). Adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Store a distilled knowledge node in semantic memory.' It then explains semantic memory as the 'what I know' layer, distinguishing it from raw event history. This gives a specific and clear purpose that helps differentiate from sibling tools like store_episodic_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 states that semantic memory is 'used by retrieval to surface relevant knowledge without relying on raw event history,' indicating when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context of sibling tools (store_episodic_memory, add_glossary_term) implies the distinction. Clear context but lacks explicit exclusions, so 4.

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