wake_up

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' while adding real value: the exact contents loaded and a once-per-conversation constraint. It does not describe size/verbosity of the payload (e.g., whether summaries are truncated), so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative call-order instruction and frequency cap, then the payload contents. The final return-shape sentence is long but functional; only minor trimming would be possible without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned data keys (how_to_use, core, impressions, precious, glossary, notebook) and conditionally describing notebook. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single namespace parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions namespace or the fixed-namespace override, adding nothing beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb (call first) and resource (the memory context: core memories, diary, summaries, notebook pages) so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by promising a note on when to use the other memory tools, a role no sibling name implies.

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?

Explicit ordering guidance: 'Call this first in every new conversation, before your first reply, even if the person only says hi,' plus the frequency constraint 'Once per conversation is enough.' That removes the main ambiguity (whether to call when the user's message looks trivial) and names the alternative path via the how_to_use note.

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