Cortex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Store a memory' implies a write operation, but we don't know if this is idempotent, what permissions are required, whether it's transactional, what happens on failure, or what the 'predictive coding write gate' entails. The description doesn't address rate limits, side effects, or any behavioral characteristics beyond the basic write implication.

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 concise (one sentence) but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it's front-loaded with the core action ('Store a memory'), it lacks necessary elaboration. The sentence earns its place but doesn't provide enough value - it's concise to a fault rather than efficiently informative.

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?

For a 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. While there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to explain what this tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity and complete lack of structured documentation, this description provides minimal contextual value.

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 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'content' should contain, what 'tags' are for, what 'directory' or 'domain' represent, what 'source' indicates, when to use 'force', or what 'agent_topic' means. The description fails completely to compensate for the lack of schema 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 'Store a memory through the predictive coding write gate' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'remember' as 'store a memory'. While it mentions 'predictive coding write gate', this is vague technical jargon that doesn't clarify what the tool actually does or what a 'memory' represents in this system. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'record_session_end' or 'wiki_write' which might also store information.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might store or record information (record_session_end, wiki_write, backfill_memories, etc.), there's no indication of when 'remember' is appropriate versus these other options. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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