memora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the auto-assigned tag 'memora/issues' in the Returns section. However, it lacks safety information (idempotency, error behavior, permissions) expected for a creation tool without annotation coverage.

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 docstring structure (summary, Args, Returns) is efficient and front-loaded. Every section earns its place, though the Args list is necessarily verbose to cover the undocumented schema parameters. No redundant or filler text is present.

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 6 parameters with zero schema coverage, the description successfully documents all inputs and adds the auto-tagging output behavior. While error cases aren't detailed, the presence of an output schema reduces the need for extensive return value explanation, making this sufficiently complete.

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 has 0% description coverage. The Args section fully compensates by documenting all 6 parameters with semantic meaning, enum values for status/severity/closed_reason, and concrete examples for component and category. This is exemplary compensation for schema deficiencies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a new issue/bug memory') that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like memory_create (generic) and memory_create_todo (task-specific). The scope is immediately clear.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state 'when not to use,' the specialized parameter list (severity, status, component) in the Args section implicitly guides the agent toward using this for structured bug tracking rather than generic memory creation.

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