memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence across sessions, semantic search, and deletion by various criteria. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., permanent deletion, rate limits, auth requirements) or behavior in edge cases, which would be helpful for a tool with multiple 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence gives the overall purpose, and the second efficiently covers all three actions with their key parameters. Every word 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 has 9 parameters and 3 actions, the description effectively covers the primary use cases. An output schema exists (though not shown) so missing details about return values are acceptable. It could mention pagination or all-memories retrieval, but overall it is reasonably complete for a memory tool.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters by action context (e.g., specifying which params apply to store, search, delete), making it easier for an agent to understand which fields are relevant for each action. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 purpose: 'Persist and retrieve project context across sessions.' It then enumerates three distinct actions (store, search, delete) with specific verbs and resources, making the scope unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools which appear unrelated.

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 guidance for each action: 'Use action='store' to save a decision/note, action='search' to find memories by semantic similarity, action='delete' to clean up by ID, tags, or type.' While it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools, the sibling tools are sufficiently different so no confusion arises.

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