Determine the correct memory operation. Use this recipe to clarify whether to call read or write memory functions when managing persistent data.
Return the generic amem remember contract: when to call amem_context vs amem_remember. Use if you are unsure whether to read or write memory. Same recipe for every MCP host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only informational response by saying it returns a recipe/contract, and notes consistency across MCP hosts, but it does not explicitly state that no memory is modified or describe the response shape.
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 three short sentences with no waste. It front-loads what is returned, then when to use it, then a useful consistency note.
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 zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what the tool provides and when to use it. A minor gap remains around what the returned contract looks like, but the core need is covered.
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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details.
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 states that the tool returns a generic amem remember contract and explicitly frames it as guidance for choosing between amem_context and amem_remember. That distinguishes it from the sibling tools, though the word 'contract' is slightly abstract and the tool's output form is only loosely implied.
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 a direct condition for use ('Use if you are unsure whether to read or write memory') and names the two alternative tools at the decision point. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with alternatives identified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.