store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Repeated memory writes may deduplicate; signal writes are intended to remain append-like.' It also states what is returned: 'Returns the stored entry identifier, timestamp, and duplicate information.' This provides adequate transparency about behavior 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with front-loaded purpose. It uses four clear sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, kind distinction, and return behavior. No superfluous words.

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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, 2 required) and the existence of an output schema (so return values need not be detailed), the description is quite complete. It covers the two main use cases (memory vs signal), deduplication behavior, and the return information. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds some context about the 'kind' parameter (durable vs transient) and the general purpose of storing compact records vs signals, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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: 'Store one entry in the bridge for later retrieval or coordination.' It specifies the verb (store), resource (entry in bridge), and the broad context (retrieval or coordination). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall (retrieve), ack_signal (acknowledge), etc.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this tool when you want to persist a compact memory record or write a signal that another workflow can poll later.' It also gives detailed guidance on the 'kind' parameter: 'Write durable knowledge as kind="memory" and transient coordination events as kind="signal".' This helps the agent decide when to use store versus alternatives.

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