kopern_manage_memory

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating write capability. The description goes beyond by detailing the actions (including destructive 'forget') and explicitly stating 'No LLM cost,' which is a valuable behavioral trait. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or persistence details, but the core behavioral information is well communicated. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with a clear, front-loaded purpose. The actions are listed compactly with parenthetical explanations. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 parameter count (6) and the fact that no output schema exists, the description should ideally mention what each action returns (e.g., recall returns matching memories, list returns all keys). It currently lacks this information. However, for a CRUD-like tool with common semantics, the omissions are moderate.

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 each parameter is described. The tool description adds an overview of actions but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., key uniqueness, value size limits). Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not compensate further.

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 tool's purpose: managing an agent's persistent memory. It enumerates four specific actions (remember, recall, forget, list) with brief explanations. The tool is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on external integrations or agent creation/deletion.

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 a clear context for use (agent memory management) and highlights 'No LLM cost' as a benefit. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no further guidance is necessary. A higher score would require explicit exclusions or comparative advice.

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