mnemos

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

While annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context about what gets destroyed, side effects of the open-world external interaction, persistence guarantees, or what happens on duplicate storage attempts. It fails to clarify the 'Mnemos' system or storage limits.

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 single sentence is compact with no redundancy, but for a 7-parameter destructive operation with external dependencies, it is arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Information density is high but utility is limited.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description provides no indication of return values, success confirmations, or error conditions. Given the destructive and openWorld annotations, critical context about external system behavior and data mutation risks is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents all 7 parameters (including content size limits and type enums). The description adds no parameter-specific context, but the high schema coverage meets the baseline expectation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('memory') with clear scope ('in Mnemos'). It includes 'new' which distinguishes this creation tool from sibling 'mnemos_update', though it doesn't differentiate from other siblings like 'mnemos_relate' or 'mnemos_context'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to store new vs. update existing, or how this differs from 'mnemos_context'). No prerequisites, constraints, or alternative workflows are mentioned.

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