tidbits-memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns the created memory with its ID, which is helpful, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a persistent write operation. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return value documentation) but no annotations and poor schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate for understanding the basic operation. However, for a creation tool with multiple parameters, it should provide more context about parameter usage and behavioral expectations to be truly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters (1 required, 3 optional), the description provides no information about parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. It doesn't explain what 'content', 'creator', 'tags', or 'voter_id' represent or how they should be used, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('Create a new memory/tidbit') and the resource ('memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_memory' or 'remove_memory' beyond the basic verb distinction, which prevents a perfect score.

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 alternatives like 'list_memory' or 'remove_memory'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or specific scenarios where creation is appropriate versus other operations on memories.

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