memory_signal

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

No annotations; description covers append-only filesystem behavior, rate-limiting per (type, path) within rolling window, and return value. Lacks mention of idempotency or file creation handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core action, then details on usage and behavior. No redundant 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 3 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, description explains purpose, storage, linkage to memory_lookup, and rate-limiting. Could mention duplicate handling.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters. Description adds context (e.g., 'short, anchored observation') but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description specifies it records an engineering-memory signal, anchored to a file (path), and appends to a monthly intake log. Clearly distinguishes from sibling memory_lookup which surfaces signals.

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?

Explicitly says to capture learning tied to a file so memory_lookup can surface it. Mentions rate-limiting constraint. Could better specify when not to use or alternative tools.

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