classify_message

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

The description mentions returning a MemoryEntry JSON and optional storage, but it is unclear whether calling this tool has side effects (e.g., storing the memory). The phrase 'CarryMem is a CarryMem memory system with optional storage — it tells you WHAT to remember, and can optionally store it too' is ambiguous about the tool's behavior.

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 moderately concise (around 60 words) but the last sentence about the CarryMem system is somewhat confusing and could be streamlined. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the structure could be improved for clarity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should clarify side effects, output structure, and use cases. It vaguely mentions optional storage and return format but does not cover what happens if no memorable info is found or how to interpret the result. The presence of many sibling tools demands clearer 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about the output structure (MemoryEntry with fields) but does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes a message to determine if it contains memorable information, which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'classify_and_remember', and the mention of optional storage blurs the boundary.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'classify_and_remember' or 'batch_classify'. The description mentions optional storage but does not clarify if this tool itself stores data or not, leaving the use case ambiguous.

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