spore_add

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that spores are open loops that must resolve, the meanings of tier and next (reminder not deadline), and the separation from episodic memory. It lacks some operational details like side effects or persistence, but overall it is transparent enough for an agent to anticipate 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 a single, dense paragraph that efficiently conveys the core concept, parameter meanings, and connections to sibling tools. It is front-loaded with the primary action and distinguishes the tool from related tools. No extraneous sentences.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, 2 required), the description covers most needs: concept, parameters, and resolution methods. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema. The tool's creative nature is well-contextualized.

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?

All 7 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of 'type' as kinds of openness, defines 'parked' as deliberate dormancy, and clarifies that 'next' is a reminder date not a deadline. This enhances understanding.

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 purpose: planting a spore as an open cognitive loop in the PROSPECTIVE layer. It explicitly contrasts with episodic/continuity memory and lists the three types of spores (task, question, thought), making the action and resource unmistakable.

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 explains when to use the tool (for open intentions that need later resolution) and distinguishes it from other memory types. It also references how to resolve spores (using spore_descend or spore_ascend), providing clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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