intent_remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the registration action but does not mention side effects, idempotency, return values, or any prerequisites, which is a notable gap for a write operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key parameters without wasted words. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is minimal. It does not cover due_at format, importance semantics, or the relationship to sibling intent tools, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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?

The description names three of four parameters (content, deadline, context cue) but omits 'importance'. With 0% schema coverage, it adds some value but fails to explain due_at format or the meaning of importance, leaving the schema to carry incomplete information.

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's function: 'Register a future intention (prospective memory)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' and 'remember_turn' by explicitly focusing on prospective memory and future intentions.

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 future intentions but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the phrase 'prospective memory'.

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