memory_manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists actions without detailing side effects (e.g., whether 'add' can overwrite), persistence, permissions, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with a mutation action.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary verb 'Manage', and efficiently lists the three actions without redundancy. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 moderate complexity of three actions and complete schema coverage, the description is superficially sufficient. However, it lacks context on action-specific behaviors (e.g., search syntax, list ordering) and has no output schema to clarify return values. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including enums and conditional requirements (e.g., content required for add, query for search). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: managing memory via three specific actions (add, search, list). The resource 'memory' is distinct from sibling tools like task_manager or plan_manager, making its function unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The usage is only implied by the enumerated actions, but no explicit context is given.

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