Context Link

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the attached widget shows only sources, not the answer, so the agent must relay the answer text itself. That is a valuable disclosure beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about latency, rate limits, or result scope.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one critical operational caveat. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the key interaction quirk. The remaining gap is parameter meaning for 'query', which is left entirely to the schema — and the schema does not document it.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'mode' has a description, but 'query' — the sole required parameter — has none. The description implies the query concerns workspaces/websites but adds no meaning about query format, scope, or what 'mode' values beyond the example do, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: ask a question about the user's connected workspaces and websites, returning a cited answer. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_context or get_memory, which sound similarly retrieval-oriented.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain ('connected workspaces and websites'), which separates it from save_memory, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for other retrieval needs.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable operational caveat: the attached widget shows only sources consulted, not retrieved content, so the agent must use the returned context itself. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The key limitation is front-loaded in the second sentence and directly informs how to use the tool's output.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations are rich, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety properties. It supplies the important widget caveat, but it still leaves parameter meaning and sibling-tool selection largely to the schema or inference.

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 only 50%: the required query parameter has no description, while mode has only a brief example. The description adds no meaning for either parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap in parameter semantics.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: retrieve context from the user's connected workspaces and websites. It is more specific than the bare tool name, but it does not explicitly distinguish this retrieval from sibling tools like get_memory or ask_question.

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 implies the tool should be used to gather context for answering the user, and it tells the agent to use the returned context directly. However, it does not state when to choose this over get_memory or ask_question, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the fact that content was "previously saved" and says nothing about behavior when the namespace is missing or how results are returned, so it adds minimal behavioral value beyond the structured fields.

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 short sentences with the action stated first and the usage condition second; there is no filler, redundancy, or trailing hedging.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and for a one-parameter read this definition covers essentially everything an agent needs. The only gap is the absence of any note about behavior on an unknown namespace, a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains "namespace" fully. The phrase "by its namespace" in the description merely restates the schema and adds no format, naming-convention, or validation detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve previously saved memory content") and the retrieval key ("by its namespace"), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like save_memory or get_context, but the read/lookup intent is clear.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to recall saved content" gives an explicit triggering condition that ties the tool to a user intent. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming get_context as the alternative for context-style retrieval, so it falls just below the top band.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond them — notably it does not warn that reusing a namespace may overwrite an existing memory, which is the key consequence an agent should know. Adds little beyond annotations.

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 tight sentences, purpose and usage front-loaded, nothing redundant. Slightly padded by restating 'content' as 'information, notes, or conversation content,' but overall efficient.

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?

An output schema and full annotation set mean the description needn't explain returns or safety. Purpose and trigger are covered; the only meaningful omission is the destructive/overwrite-on-namespace behavior, which the annotations partially signal.

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 both 'content' and 'namespace' semantics (including the auto-generated timestamped name fallback and dash formatting) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('the user's memory') with the outcome ('for later retrieval'), so it is distinguishable from siblings like get_memory. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear triggering context: 'Use this when the user wants to save information, notes, or conversation content.' It supplies when-to-use but no when-not or alternative routing (e.g., vs. get_memory or ask_question).

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