remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: storage is permanent, the call surfaces resembling existing entries so contradictions are noticed, and ersetzt entries are 'not deleted, only removed from the default view' (i.e., non-destructive). Auth requirements, concurrency, and write-vs-read safety profile are still unstated.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the resemblance-reporting behavior immediately after and parameters grouped last. The Args block is necessarily long due to six art values, but every line carries information; only minor density cost from mixing German terms.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully flags the resemblance report anyway. Parameter conventions are covered in depth. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling write/forget tools.

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%, yet the description compensates fully: it documents all four parameters, including the six allowed 'art' values with definitions (schnittstelle, fallstrick, entscheidung, messwert, arbeitsweise, verlauf), the tag separator format and convention, and the ersetzt id format ('12,34') plus its non-deleting effect. This goes well beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stores a text permanently in memory') and adds a distinctive behavioral trait (reports back resembling entries). It indirectly contrasts with recall via the 'verlauf... excluded from recall's default view' note, but never explicitly frames itself against siblings like vergessen or verdichten.

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?

Usage is implied through the tag/art conventions (tags = WHERE, art = WHICH KIND), which tell the agent how to categorize knowledge. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use remember versus vergessen/verdichten/recall, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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