evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a value indicating whether to store (implied by 'should_store comes back true') and notes that agent_id is for future tuning. However, it does not explicitly state the exact return format or any side effects, though the implied boolean and purpose are reasonably transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear usage guideline and parameter list. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly comprehensive. It explains the tool's role, when to use it, and parameter semantics. The return type is implied but not explicitly stated, and it lacks details on error handling or edge cases, so it's not fully complete for a production tool without annotations.

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 input schema provides only types and defaults, with zero descriptions. The description's Args section explains each parameter's meaning (content as text to evaluate, agent_id as the asking agent for tuning, user_id as whose content this is), significantly adding value beyond the schema.

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: to ask HCC's orchestrator whether content is worth remembering before storing it. It uses a specific verb (ask) and resource (orchestrator) and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a pre-store gate for store_memory.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool ('only call store_memory for content where should_store comes back true') and when to override, including a concrete example (user says 'remember this'). This provides clear guidance on using it versus the alternative store_memory.

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