remember

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond the schema by disclosing that claimed facts are withheld from other agents, that the claim releases when work finishes or after half an hour, and that plain facts are readable by everyone. This is meaningful, non-obvious behavior.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then only the claiming nuance that materially affects how the tool behaves. It is not bloated, though the typo 'knos' is a minor polish issue.

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?

The essential write-and-claim semantics are well covered, and because an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, given the locking/timeout complexity and no annotations, a complete definition should also explain the required 'about' parameter and perhaps give an example of a fact/about pair.

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 the description must explain parameters. It thoroughly explains 'claiming' and clarifies that a 'plain fact' is a shared note, but it never defines the required 'about' parameter or the expected shape/scope of 'fact'. This partial compensation leaves one required parameter ambiguous.

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 first sentence identifies a concrete action — 'Write something back' so future sessions know it — and the rest clarifies that this is a shared note versus a claimed work item, which separates storing from searching. The resource is a bit vague ('something'), but the required fact/about parameters and the write-vs-claim distinction make the core purpose clear.

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 overall use case is implied: persist information so a future session can read it. It gives clear advice on setting 'claiming' when starting work instead of merely recording a fact, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the sibling tools 'search' or 'about' or states when not to use remember.

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