memory_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes the tool's domain, not what happens on set (overwrite semantics), whether get/list have side effects, or any persistence or authorization behavior. The action enum supplies the operations but not their behavioral implications.

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?

A single sentence with front-loaded purpose, concrete examples, and an explicit alternative. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 low complexity, the schema covers required parameters and allowed actions, and the description covers selection criteria. A minor gap is the lack of output or return information for the list action, but the action name and key-value domain make this largely self-evident.

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 schema already documents key ('Required for get and set') and value ('Required for set'), and the action enum lists valid actions. The description adds value by giving example keys and clarifying that values are structured preferences/settings, which helps an agent construct valid key/value pairs.

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 identifies the tool as a key-value store for user preferences and settings and gives concrete example keys (preferred_language, editor, timezone). It also distinguishes the target data type from general knowledge and names memory_add as the alternative, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this for structured data...') and when not to ('not for general knowledge'), directly naming memory_add as the alternative. This is specific and actionable, covering both positive and negative selection criteria.

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