tcai_memory_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the mechanism ('attention-gated, salience-indexed'), which hints at behavioral nuances, but does not explain side effects, mutation consequences, or return values. This is marginal but not entirely absent.

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?

A single sentence that is both concise and information-dense, front-loading the main action and adding two qualifiers. No wasteful words.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to fully equip an agent. It omits what the tool returns, any prerequisites (e.g., existing memory store), and the practical effect of attention/salience settings. This is a significant gap.

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?

The schema already documents parameters well (83% coverage), so the description adds limited additional meaning. It ties 'attention-gated' to attentionLevel and 'emotional memory' to affective dimensions, providing some conceptual context, but doesn't explain how each parameter maps to the storage algorithm.

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 ('Store') and the resource ('an experience in emotional memory'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like tcai_memory_retrieve. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other memory-related tools beyond the verb itself.

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 implies the tool is used for saving experiences, with phrases like 'attention-gated' suggesting a condition for storing. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor name alternative tools, but the context is reasonably clear from the tool name.

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