memory_context

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. 'Build' could imply mutable side effects, but no mention of whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or has rate limits. Behavioral traits are unclear.

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?

Single sentence, no waste. However, it lacks front-loading of key information and structure that would aid quick parsing for an agent.

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?

No output schema. The description does not explain return format, side effects, or how the context is built from the parameters. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, it is insufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'optional query matches' but does not map parameters (cwd, limit, query, project) to their semantics or expected formats. Parameter meaning is largely left to schema defaults.

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 'Build project-oriented memory context' and lists components (summaries, decisions, etc.). This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_search or memory_notes, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_search, memory_notes). The description implies it's for building a composite context, but lacks when-not-to-use or explicit alternative suggestions.

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