store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that the storage is NOT secure, advises against storing secrets, and describes the intended use for non-sensitive information. This goes beyond a basic 'store' explanation and discloses important behavioral constraints.

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?

Although the description is longer than typical, every section earns its place: security warning, key formatting rules, usage guidelines, and privacy note. It is well-structured with clear headings and bullet points, making it easy to scan without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (two string parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, how to format parameters, and important security caveats. Nothing critical is missing for safe and correct use.

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 0%, but the description compensates excellently. It explains exactly how to format 'key' (short, canonical, 1-5 words, space-separated, with examples) and how to use 'value' (full text, include extra context). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 explicitly states the tool stores a user's fact, piece of information, or preference for later recall. It uses a specific verb ('store') and resource ('user's fact...') and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools 'recall' and 'forget' by focusing on the storage action.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This tool SHOULD be called by the LLM whenever the user states a fact, personal detail, or stable preference that the assistant is expected to remember.' It also gives clear exclusions (do not store sensitive credentials) and alternative handling, which fully covers usage context.

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