remember

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or state changes. It merely lists actions without describing consequences. For example, does record_mistake create a permanent record? Is search_decisions read-only? This lack of transparency hinders safe usage.

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 a single paragraph with a long list of actions and then parameter explanations. It is moderately concise but not front-loaded; the key dispatch nature is clear but the parameter section is not structured for quick scanning. Some redundancy exists between the action list and parameter description.

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 complexity (many actions, no output schema visible), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how context should be structured for different actions, what the tool returns, or any usage examples. The existence of an output schema is noted but not described, leaving agents underinformed.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the three parameters (action: 'Which memory operation', subject: 'Primary content...', context: 'Action-specific parameters...'), which is helpful but still vague. It does not specify allowed values for action or the structure of context per action.

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 states the tool performs 'Memory operations: record, search, and retrieve past decisions, mistakes, and patterns.' This gives a clear verb+resource purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like record_mistake or search_decisions which appear to offer similar functionality.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that seem to implement individual actions. There is no guidance on when to choose 'remember' over a more specific tool.

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