@git-fabric/aiana

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that duplicate IDs are overwritten, which is a key behavioral trait for mutation operations. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns, leaving gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a critical behavioral note about duplicates. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It covers the import action and duplicate handling but misses details on permissions, response format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This is adequate for basic understanding but lacks depth for safe and effective use.

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 100%, with the parameter 'memories' well-documented in the schema as an array of memory records from export. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating the source ('from aiana_memory_export'), so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensating with additional insights.

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 ('import') and resource ('memories'), specifying they come from a previously exported array. It distinguishes from siblings like aiana_memory_add by focusing on bulk import from export data, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like aiana_memory_search or aiana_memory_recall.

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 implies usage when importing from exported data, mentioning 'from aiana_memory_export', which suggests a workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like aiana_memory_add for single memories or aiana_memory_search for retrieval, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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