khwan_memory

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility of explaining behavior. It goes beyond expected by stating 'No model is called,' 'ignores what you are working on,' and positions the tool as a debugging window rather than a session-guiding tool. These details illuminate performance, context-invariance, and safety in ways annotations and schema could not.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: primary behavior, key caveat, usage contexts, args, and returns. It is concise enough to parse quickly yet complete enough to avoid misinference, and its most important disambiguation against khwan_recall appears early instead of buried at the bottom.

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 one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to call correctly: order of results, context sensitivity, why to invoke it, and what it returns. The explicit when-not-to-use guidance and sibling reference make it complete in context.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description is essential and it fully compensates. It explicitly defines limit as 'max entries to return, newest first (default 20),' adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare 'Limit' integer. For a single parameter, this is complete.

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 opening line uses a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect what this brain currently remembers, newest first.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from khwan_recall by saying it answers 'is anything in here / did that write land', not 'what is relevant to this task.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among six siblings.

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 explicitly carves out when to use this tool vs alternatives: for khwan_recall when you need meaning-ranked, bounded results; for khwan_memory when recall came back empty or when confirming a khwan_remember write persisted. It also states clear no-seeding-a-session boundary, giving an agent decisive routing criteria beyond simple sibling overlap.

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