agent-memory-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'provenance tracking' (which hints at metadata recording), it doesn't describe critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Store'), what permissions are needed, whether it overwrites existing data, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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—just two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the action and key feature, while the second provides concrete usage examples without redundancy. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like mutation effects, error cases, or return values, and it leaves parameter semantics largely undocumented. For a tool that stores data with provenance, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 50%, meaning half the parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by 'provenance tracking' (which might relate to source_type, confidence, etc.). It doesn't explain the meaning of parameters like 'category' enums or 'tags', nor does it compensate for the low coverage gap. With 6 parameters and partial schema documentation, this is minimally adequate.

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 verb 'Store' and resource 'memory' with the specific purpose of 'with provenance tracking'. It provides concrete examples of use cases (lessons learned, strategic insights, etc.), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like memory_feedback or memory_recall.

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 implied usage guidance through the examples ('Use for lessons learned, strategic insights...'), which suggests appropriate contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_feedback or memory_recall, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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