Stateless Agent Memory Engine (SAME)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a retrieval operation ('Get orientation context'). It adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what data is returned (pinned notes, handoff, decisions) and its purpose for session continuity, though it lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses two concise sentences total. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function and output without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, read-only) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and returns, but could improve by detailing the output structure or error handling, though annotations cover safety aspects adequately.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description compensates by explaining the tool's output ('Returns structured session context') and content, adding meaning beyond the schema, though it could briefly mention the lack of inputs.

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 with specific verbs ('Get orientation context') and resources ('pinned notes, the latest handoff, and recent decisions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on session continuity rather than note creation, searching, or memory management, making it easy to understand its unique role.

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 usage ('for a new session' and 'pick up where the last session left off'), implying it should be used at session start. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'recent_activity' or 'get_note', leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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