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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Stores a memory' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, how conflicts are handled, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'memory', how the storage works, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 all 4 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional tags' and 'specified category' which partially covers 2 parameters, but doesn't explain 'data' or 'is_global' at all. The description adds some value but doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Stores') and resource ('a memory'), and specifies additional attributes ('with optional tags in a specified category'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_memories' by focusing on storage rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'remove_memory_category' or 'remove_specific_memory' beyond the verb choice.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_memories' or the removal tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes memories, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't specify if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting other data). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what 'removes' entails (e.g., deletion vs archiving), the meaning of 'is_global', or potential errors, leaving the agent under-informed for a destructive 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'category' and 'is_global' are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'category' but doesn't explain its format or scope, and it completely omits 'is_global', failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('removes') and target ('all memories within a specified category'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_specific_memory' (which presumably removes individual memories rather than entire categories), so it misses the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_specific_memory' or 'retrieve_memories'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the category must exist or if this is irreversible, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'removes' (implying a destructive operation) but doesn't clarify if removal is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The mention of 'specific memory within a specified category' adds some context about scope, but critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a basic tool description.

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?

For a destructive operation with 3 undocumented parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'memory', how categories work, what 'is_global' means, or what happens after removal. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 all 3 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'category' and 'specific memory' (implied by 'memory_content'), leaving 'is_global' completely unexplained. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 verb 'removes' and the resource 'specific memory within a specified category', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'remove_memory_category' by targeting individual memories rather than entire categories, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'remember_memory' or 'retrieve_memories'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose this over 'remove_memory_category' (for deleting entire categories) or how it relates to 'remember_memory' (for adding memories) and 'retrieve_memories' (for viewing).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Retrieves'), implying safety, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, return format, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and return values, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand tool usage and outcomes.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'category', leaving 'is_global' unexplained. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to adequately clarify parameter meanings or usage.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('memories') with a specific scope ('from a specified category'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remember_memory' or 'remove_specific_memory', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remember_memory' or 'remove_specific_memory'. It mentions a 'specified category' but doesn't explain prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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