Capture turn

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

The description explains that Midas evaluates importance, checks relevance and duplicates, and returns whether the item was stored and why. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by confirming it is a write operation that is not destructive, and adds value beyond annotations by describing the filtering logic.

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 informative and well-structured: it starts with core purpose, explains behavior, then lists parameter hints. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.

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?

The description explains the return value and filtering behavior, but lacks detail on optional parameters (actor, session, namespace) and does not provide usage examples. For a tool central to memory, more completeness on parameter semantics would be beneficial.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains two parameters (kind and provenance) with example values, but does not describe actor, session, namespace, or content parameters. Content is implicitly covered but lacks clear format or constraints.

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: to forward durable information to memory for automatic filtering and storage by Midas, without LLM involvement. It distinguishes itself from other memory tools by emphasizing automatic, hands-off remembering, and provides explicit types (kind) and sources (provenance).

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 advises when to use the tool ('forward anything durable') and implies it is safe to use freely ('capture freely without polluting'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative sibling tools like 'remember' or 'forget'.

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