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 only discloses that memory persists across sessions, but does not explain write semantics (overwrite vs. append), return values, or side effects of actions like 'set' and 'note'. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Read or write', and every phrase adds value. It is concise and free of 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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description must explain behavior sufficiently. It fails to cover the three actions, the purpose of 'limit', or what get returns. For a 5-parameter tool with nuanced actions, this is incomplete.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about memory content (T1D config, notes, preferences) but does not clarify the meaning of the 'action' enum or the distinction between 'set' and 'note'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads or writes shopping memory, specifying the domain (T1D config, notes, preferences) and persistence across sessions. It distinguishes itself from cart/deals tools but does not explicitly differentiate from similar storage tools like 'knowledge' or 'read_saved'.

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 usage for persistent memory storage but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'knowledge' or 'store'. There are no exclusionary statements or alternative tool references.

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