site_memory

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 important behaviors: memory persists across sessions and restarts, and it auto-accumulates on every scrape. This adds context beyond the schema, though it could further describe what happens on delete or how reads are returned.

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 plus examples, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds information: purpose, auto-accumulation, persistence, and realistic usage examples. No filler or 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?

The tool has multiple actions (read/write/list/delete) and no output schema. The description explains the overall concept but does not specify return values or action-specific behavior (e.g., what 'read' returns or what 'list' outputs). This is a notable gap for a multi-action tool, though the schema's action descriptions partially fill it.

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 already covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving example keys ('waitTime', 'customSelector') and note content, which clarifies how 'key' and 'note' might be used in practice. This pushes it above baseline.

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 tool's function: 'Read, write, or list persistent memory about websites.' It uses specific verbs and a specific resource, and the examples (wait time, custom selectors, login cookies) make the purpose concrete. While 'delete' is omitted from the verb list, the core purpose is unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on scraping and interaction.

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 explicit usage scenarios with 'Use this to add custom notes' and concrete examples. It also notes that memory auto-accumulates, implying it's the place for persistent data. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare against alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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