project_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names operations like remember, complete/archive, and search, but does not explain side effects, persistence semantics, return values, or any prerequisites. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple mutating actions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists key actions without fluff. It is efficient and appropriate in size for a high-level overview.

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 (11 parameters, multiple action modes, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too incomplete. It provides only a high-level summary and omits critical usage details, action-specific semantics, and expected responses.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter-level information. The tool has 11 parameters, including enums and defaults, but none are explained, leaving agents unable to construct valid calls.

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 manages compact project memory across chats, agents, and IDEs, and enumerates specific operations (remember, complete/archive, search, update rules). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on memory management, though 'manage' is a generic verb and the exact resource is broad.

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 implies the tool should be used when needing to maintain project memory across chats, agents, and IDEs, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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