@git-fabric/aiana

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that preferences are stored as memories and are searchable/recallable, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as persistence, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. For a write operation (implied by 'Store') with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying note on searchability. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (write operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and memory type but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (preference and project) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Store a user preference as a memory') and resource ('preference'), specifying that it's stored with type=preference. It distinguishes from generic memory tools by focusing on preferences, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aiana_memory_add.

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 mentions that preferences are 'searchable and recallable like any other memory,' which implies usage context but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aiana_memory_add for general memories or other preference-related tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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