kuma_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the store is persistent and saves time in future sessions, but it omits critical details such as mutation semantics, permissions, side effects, or write safety.

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 but includes vague, motivational phrases ('Record what matters, skip what doesn't', 'This is what saves time in future sessions') that do not add actionable information. The action list is structured with a header, but the overall text is not as front-loaded as it could 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 actions, 17 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers action usage but leaves significant gaps in behavioral context and return value expectations. It is sufficient to guide action selection but not to fully understand the tool's operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage triggers for each action but does not clarify parameter formats or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines the tool as a persistent knowledge store and enumerates its core actions, making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., kuma_context, kuma_safety), so an agent has no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over others.

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 explicit triggers for each action (e.g., 'gotcha' immediately when you find a bug/quirk, 'decision' when choosing between options) and a when-not rule for what to skip ('Don't record what grep/glob answers faster'). It does not address when to use this tool versus sibling tools, but the action-level guidance is strong.

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