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 destructiveHint annotation. While the annotation indicates destructive operations, the description clarifies that it 'creates new knowledge files without modifying originals' and mentions the experimental nature of the tool. It also describes what the tool does (merges duplicates, resolves contradictions, extracts key facts) which isn't covered by annotations alone.

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 purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter details, and return information. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity. The Args section could be more concise since it duplicates schema information, but overall the description is front-loaded with essential information.

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 (consolidation operations), the presence of a destructiveHint annotation, and no output schema, the description provides good context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter details, and what it returns. The experimental flag is helpful context. It could benefit from more detail about the consolidation algorithm or error cases.

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 both parameters. The description repeats the parameter information in the Args section but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('consolidate', 'merges', 'resolves', 'extracts', 'creates') and resources ('related notes in the vault'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_similar_notes' by focusing on consolidation rather than just finding similar notes, and from 'save_note' by creating new files without modifying originals.

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 the tool ('when the vault has many similar or overlapping notes'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage based on vault state rather than providing explicit exclusions.

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