Stateless Agent Memory Engine (SAME)

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety aspects. The description adds useful context about what gets created (a handoff note with specific content sections) and mentions the return value (path to the note), but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like file format, location constraints, or overwrite 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation and return information. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, though the 'Args' section could be more integrated with the narrative flow rather than appearing as a separate documentation block.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and helpful annotations, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value, though without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the returned path format or note structure. The description covers the essential information needed to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats what's in the schema without adding significant semantic value beyond restating the parameter purposes. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a session handoff note') and purpose ('so the next session picks up where this one left off'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_note or save_decision by focusing on session continuity. It explicitly mentions what content to include (what was worked on, pending tasks, blockers).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('so the next session picks up where this one left off'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage at session boundaries for continuity purposes.

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