memory_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: the card is indexed immediately on write and becomes visible to all future sessions and other agents, so no reindex call is needed. It also states what must not be persisted (transient state, credentials). It stops short of describing required permissions, failure behavior, or the shape of the returned result, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Every sentence earns its place — purpose, indexing side effect, triggers, authoring guidance, and prohibitions are all non-redundant. However it is delivered as one dense run-on block with no line breaks or headers, so the trigger list and the exclusion list are harder to scan than they need to be.

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?

For a 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, authoring rules, and prohibitions well. The main omission is what the call returns and how failures surface (e.g. conflict results), though on_conflict handling is at least documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by telling the agent how to author the two required parameters — title must be phrased as the words a future search would use, body must contain facts, commands, paths, and rationale. It adds no semantics for kind/source/on_conflict/reject_secrets beyond what the schema already documents.

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 concrete verb+resource (把一条值得长期复用的知识写进记忆库) and its downstream effect (供以后所有会话和其他 agent 检索). It explicitly names a sibling, memory_reindex, and rules it out ('不需要再调用 memory_reindex'), so the agent can distinguish this from the read-side siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger timing (完成一个任务、解决一个报错、确认一个环境配置、做出一个影响后续的决策之后) and explicit exclusions (不要写入：临时状态、一次性的中间过程、密码与私钥等凭据). It also prescribes how to prepare input (先蒸馏，不要倒贴整段对话原文) and how to phrase title vs body — a complete use protocol rather than an implied one.

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