hints

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

Given annotations are all false (no readOnly, no destructiveness), the description adds valuable behavioral context: persistence location (~/.codehelper/learned_hints.json), local-first with sync capability, and that actions like add and remove are mutating. It does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage patterns, and persistence detail. It is front-loaded with the core concept and has no redundant words.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use cases and persistence. It does not specify the format of list results, but the actions are sufficiently explained. Slightly incomplete for a complex tool, but adequate given the parameter descriptions.

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 100%, so parameters are described in schema. The description adds context by explaining how parameters like 'action', 'text', and 'scope' relate to the overall functionality (e.g., 'action=add to remember something'). This enhances understanding beyond the 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 verb 'remember' and resource 'hints/rules', and explicitly mentions cross-project scope, distinguishing it from project-specific memory tools. It covers the main actions (add, list, remove) and is specific about the use case.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action (add, list, remove) and the context of cross-project learned hints. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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