remember_fact

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral context: facts are injected into future prompts, duplicate facts update rather than duplicate, and scope controls injection. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are sufficient.

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 and well-structured with a clear header sentence followed by a terse explanation and an Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and only two parameters, the description covers input semantics and behavior. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple factual memory tool.

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?

Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args section adds essential meaning for both parameters: fact requires a self-contained concrete sentence, scope defaults to 'global' and can be a session name. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 tool saves a durable fact to local workspace knowledge memory. It explains what facts are and notes idempotent behavior on duplicates. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like forget_fact or search_knowledge.

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 explains that facts are distilled knowledge injected into future prompts, implying when to use this tool. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., forget_fact for deletion).

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