chimera_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions importance scoring but does not explain its effect on storage or recall, nor does it describe side effects, persistence, or concurrency behavior. The actions 'store' and 'recall' are listed without detail on how they modify state.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with key concepts. However, it sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity, which may hinder tool selection.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the parameters, expected return values, or behavior in edge cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only lists the 'action' parameter via the two actions but does not explain parameters like content, tags, query, limit, or namespace. Importance is mentioned but not connected to the schema parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a session memory store with two actions (store, recall) and mentions importance scoring. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like chimera_knowledge or chimera_self_model, which may also involve memory storage and retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons with other chimera tools.

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