Knowledge Cache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains persistence, that learn signals are immediately queryable but provisional until promoted by repeated evidence, that save_summary permanently annotates chunks, and that suggest uses access history and traffic weight. This goes well beyond schema details, though it could be clearer about mutation side-effects and exact behaviors for save_summary beyond persistence.

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 substantially repetitive. The action list, 'Usage (short)', 'Usage (long)', and the later 'Call learn'/'Call query' paragraphs all restate the same action set with slight wording differences. It is conceptually organized, but several sentences do not earn their place because they reproduce information already covered.

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 four-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers most of what an agent needs to select, call, and understand each action. It defines behavior, input patterns, and outcome intent. It could be more complete by describing return payloads per action and explicitly naming what distinguishes this tool from the codebase search/insight 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description supports action semantics by explaining what each enum value does, but it does not deepen the semantics of max_tokens or compress_payload beyond what the schema already describes. This is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 role as a persistence/knowledge cache and enumerates four concrete actions with explicit result types. It differentiates itself from raw searching by positioning itself as a cache for established patterns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as synapse_search_codebase.

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 provides solid usage context: call learn after useful search results, call save_summary for permanent annotations, and call query with natural language/filenames/symbols/chunk IDs. It says this tool replaces repeated searches, manual notetaking, and rediscovery, but it does not name the actual sibling alternatives, leaving the when-not-to-use boundary slightly implicit.

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