extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the pattern-matching mechanism but doesn't disclose whether the tool writes to persistent storage, what it returns, or any side effects. The schema hints at namespaces and deduplication, but the description doesn't explain these behaviors, leaving a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates memory state.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the method. No redundant wording; each sentence contributes. It's concise and easy to scan, with no wasted 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?

The tool has seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only two sentences. It doesn't explain what the extraction produces, whether it persists memories, or how the various thresholds and namespaces affect behavior. An agent cannot fully predict the tool's side effects or return value, making this incomplete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters have descriptions. The description's mention of 'conversation text' aligns with the 'text' parameter but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema for other parameters like 'project', 'namespace', or 'deduplicate'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('extract memories') on a specific resource ('conversation text') and explains the method ('pattern matching'). It distinguishes implicitly from siblings like 'remember' (which likely stores explicit memories) by emphasizing automatic extraction, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'remember', 'recall', or 'remember_batch'. It doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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