raggy_remember

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states that this is a save operation for unstructured notes, and it warns about metadata being low-value. However, it does not disclose persistence, retrieval behavior, URL ingestion behavior, or side effects beyond the schema.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple note-save tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary decision point (when to use remember vs capture). It could mention that URL can be ingested instead of text, but the schema already documents that, so the gap is minor.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; the 'metadata adds no value' phrase reinforces that name and tags are optional or unnecessary, but it does not clarify the URL-vs-text distinction or value semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Save a simple, unstructured note') and explicitly contrasts itself with raggy_capture, which handles typed entries. An agent can immediately tell this tool from its main sibling without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: prefer raggy_capture for typed content and only use raggy_remember for free-form notes where metadata adds no value. This directly tells the agent when to select this tool versus the obvious alternative.

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