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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool recalls across pillars in parallel, ranks and packs results, and returns specific fields. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or has side effects. The 'recall' language implies read-only, but without annotation support, a clear statement about non-mutation would be ideal. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the main action, followed by a detailed explanation of the recall mechanism and a usage note. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence contributes meaning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly. Slightly tighter wording could earn a 5, but it remains 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?

The description covers the tool's core function, usage timing, and return fields (rendered, tokens_used, counts_by_pillar, records). Given that an output schema exists, the return format is likely specified there. The description does not discuss error conditions or prerequisites, but for a context-assembly tool with 6 parameters and optional graph support, the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation. A mention of potential failure modes would make it more complete.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the 'task' indirectly and refers to the pack, but does not elaborate on parameters like 'repo', 'github', or 'open_files' in a way that would improve understanding. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Assemble one token-budgeted, cited context pack for a task.' It clearly defines the output as a sectioned markdown bundle and differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming the alternative serial calls (memory_recall, memory_procedure_get, memory_graph_related). The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this once at the start of a task instead of issuing serial memory_recall / memory_procedure_get / memory_graph_related calls.' This directly instructs the agent on the appropriate invocation context and names the alternatives to avoid, which is exemplary usage guidance.

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