memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states side effects (creates/retrieves memory files) and output (Memory operation results). This provides adequate transparency about the tool's behavior, though it could mention file namespace or persistence details.

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 relatively concise, using a hint format and bullet-like lines. It front-loads the key actions and categories. Could be slightly more streamlined, but generally efficient.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 3 actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the major usage modes and categories. It lacks exhaustive parameter details but provides enough context for basic operation.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains action values and mentions categories, title, content, query, and task_id. However, it does not explain metadata, include_related, limit, or default values for all parameters. Partial coverage.

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 it is a unified memory management tool with three distinct actions (save, recall, search) and categories. It differentiates from sibling tools like memory_maint by specifying its specific operations.

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 clear context for each action: save for storing insights, recall for retrieving by task_id, and search for querying. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidelines are sufficient for an AI agent to select the appropriate action.

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