remember_fragment

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: dedup via SimHash, entropy scoring, automatic merging of duplicates with salience boosting, and pinned behavior. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but covers the core algorithmic behavior.

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 structured with a brief main sentence followed by technical details and parameter list. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

The description covers parameter details and core behavior, but given the complexity and many sibling tools, it lacks context about where this tool fits in the broader ecosystem. It does not address output schema or return values, but that is acceptable since an output schema is present.

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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter: content text, source origin, token count auto-estimation, and pinned behavior details. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 stores a context fragment with automatic dedup and entropy scoring. It uses specific verbs and describes the resource ('context fragment'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like vault_write_belief, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to specify when not to use it or identify prerequisites. For a tool with many siblings, this is a significant omission.

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