prime_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool automatically builds a context brief and returns data, implying a read-like operation, but does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or whether memory is modified. The transparency is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and timing, then explains usage and returns. Highly efficient and well-structured.

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 has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and a medium-complexity context, the description covers when to use, what it does, and what it returns. It does not explain memory selection logic or node/edge format, but is mostly complete for an agent to decide to invoke 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 100% with each parameter described as optional and used for memory partitioning. The description adds context about scoping, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 builds a compact context brief at conversation start, hydrates an assistant with scoped memories, and returns summary, nodes, and edges. This is a specific action with a clear purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_context_window or query_graph.

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 specifies when to use the tool: at the start of a scoped conversation or before continuity-dependent work. This provides clear context, but it does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance.

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