agtmem_bug

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 the tool's purpose and the required structure (symptom, cause, fix), and implies a write/persist operation. However, it does not disclose whether the bug record is appended, overwritten, deduplicated, or how the 'id' and 'scope' fields affect behavior. For a write tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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, zero filler. The core purpose and the trigger condition are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. The phrase 'the three parts that make it reusable' efficiently conveys the required structure.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential trigger and required fields, but it lacks behavioral details like whether this is an insert or upsert, how 'scope' affects storage, and what happens on duplicate bugs. The sibling tools (search, read, append, write, index, candidates, find) suggest a memory system, but the description doesn't clarify how this bug record integrates with them. It's adequate but not complete.

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 50%, and the description names the three required parts (symptom, cause, fix) which maps to the schema's required fields. It adds the semantic framing that these three make the bug 'reusable', which is useful. However, it does not explain optional parameters like 'id', 'note', 'tags', 'scope', or 'title' beyond what the schema already provides. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Record a bug') and resource ('the three parts that make it reusable: symptom, root cause, fix'), and it clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on bug recording with a structured reusable format. It also names the trigger condition ('after solving anything non-obvious'), which helps an agent understand exactly what this tool is for.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call this after solving anything non-obvious.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger condition is clear enough to route an agent to this tool versus the other agtmem_* siblings. A small deduction because it doesn't say when NOT to use it (e.g., for simple/obvious fixes).

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