mem_learn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions storage as kind=skill and Ebbinghaus strength tracking, but does not disclose whether this is a destructive write, how conflicts are handled (despite a check_conflicts parameter), or any permission requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond its stated purpose.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds a relevant storage detail. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words.

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 12 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior, conflict handling, or provide enough guidance for an agent to correctly populate all parameters or choose this tool over siblings.

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%, so half the parameters lack schema documentation. The description mentions the core fields (trigger, steps, outcome, lessons) but does not explain tags, topics, project, ttl_days, visibility, or check_conflicts. It adds some value for the key fields but does not fully compensate for the undocumented half.

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 (record) and resource (after-action skill), and specifies it stores as kind=skill with Ebbinghaus strength tracking, which distinguishes it from generic write tools like mem_write. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state what it is not for, so it falls short of a 5.

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 task experience and lessons learned, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like mem_write or mem_update. There is no mention of exclusions or when to prefer other tools, so guidance is only implied.

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