管家记忆-归档

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 only states that the tool archives or restores a memory, but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is reversible, whether it affects search or context results, or what the return value is. For a state-changing operation, this is underspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and resource directly and is appropriately concise for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and a state-changing effect. It does not explain what happens after archiving, whether restore is unarchive, or what the response contains. The description is minimally viable but leaves important operational context unresolved.

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%, and the description itself adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It implies 'archived' true/false through the archive/restore wording, but does not explain 'memory_id' identification semantics or the purpose of 'reason'. An agent would have to guess whether 'reason' is required for archiving, restoring, or both.

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 a specific action and resource: 'archive or restore a local butler memory' (归档或恢复一条本地管家记忆). This is distinct from sibling tools like memory_save, memory_update, memory_search, and memory_export, because it targets the archive state specifically. The verb 'archive or restore' unambiguously communicates the state toggle operation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_update, memory_save, or memory_context. There is no mention of prerequisites, when archiving is appropriate, or how it relates to memory_search/context behavior. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and terse description.

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