memory_extract

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear the burden. Indicates LLM analysis and automatic extraction, implying memory writes, but does not explicitly confirm side effects, permissions, or potential for hallucination. The comparison to 'autoCapture' adds some context.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with 'Smart extraction'. Every word adds value.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It does not explain return values or confirm that memories are stored, but the sibling list and tool intent make this somewhat implicit. A bit more detail on output would improve completeness.

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 already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds only minor context: 'conversation text' for text and 'Target scope' for scope, but does not elaborate on scope values or format.

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?

Description clearly states the tool uses LLM to extract important memories (preferences, decisions, facts, etc.) and distinguishes it from other memory tools like memory_store or memory_recall. The phrase 'Smart extraction' and comparison to 'autoCapture' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises to call at the end of important conversations, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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