encode_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses mutation via 'Create' and the automatic embedding generation, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects on existing data, or the return format, leaving gaps for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The most important information (create event + embeddings) is front-loaded, and every phrase 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, consolidation paths, causal links), the description is minimal but covers the core function. The rich schema fills in many details, but the description does not explain the purpose of fields like 'precedes' or 'consolidates_to' in a broader 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 high (75%), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'emotional valence, temporal context, and entity involvement' maps to schema fields but adds no new detail beyond existing property descriptions.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource ('episodic memory event') and highlights key attributes (emotional valence, temporal context, entity involvement). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning automatic embedding generation, which is a unique feature.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or discussion of alternatives. The description implies use for storing episodic memories that need embeddings, but lacks exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like hippocampus_write_event.

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