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 annotations: it explains SAME's provenance tracking ('if the source files change later, the item is automatically flagged as potentially addressed') and mentions the return value ('confirmation with the file path'). Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description provides operational details that enhance understanding without contradiction.

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: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the parameter section could be slightly more concise as it largely mirrors the schema.

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?

For a tool with good annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context: purpose, usage scenario, behavioral details about provenance tracking, and return information. The lack of an output schema is compensated by mentioning the return value, though more detail on the confirmation format would be helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Args' section repeats this information without adding significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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: 'Log a friction point, bug, or improvement idea discovered during work.' It specifies the verb ('Log') and resource ('friction point, bug, or improvement idea'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning SAME's provenance tracking feature, which no other tool in the list appears to offer.

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: 'discovered during work' for logging observations. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient to guide usage in typical scenarios without being misleading.

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