Stateless Agent Memory Engine (SAME)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It explains what the tool generates ('a concise briefing generated from vault contents'), mentions it's 'experimental' (which implies potential instability), and describes the content structure ('recent activity, open decisions, and key context'). While it doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, it provides useful operational context that annotations don't capture.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, provides usage guidance, documents the parameter, and notes the experimental nature. While efficient, the parameter documentation duplicates schema information, slightly reducing conciseness value.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation), the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and its experimental status. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description adequately describes the return value ('a concise briefing generated from vault contents').

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 fully documents the single parameter 'max_items'. The description repeats the parameter information verbatim ('Maximum items per section (default 5)'), adding no additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 an orientation briefing') and resources ('what matters right now', 'recent activity, open decisions, and key context'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recent_activity' by providing a comprehensive briefing rather than just activity data, and from 'get_session_context' by focusing on project state orientation rather than session-specific 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this at the start of a session to understand current project state.' This provides clear context for usage and distinguishes it from tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_note' that serve different purposes. The guidance is specific and actionable.

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