memory_restore_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says the tool 'builds' a compact restored context, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only aggregation, whether it writes or mutates memory, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects might occur. This is a meaningful gap for a memory-related tool.

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 one tight sentence, front-loads the main action ('Build a compact restored context'), and avoids filler. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

For a tool with optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and when to use it. However, with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no explanation of how the two parameters influence the restored context, the description leaves meaningful invocation details unstated. It is minimally viable but not 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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'prompt' or 'max_chars'. 'max_chars' is somewhat inferable from its name and default, and 'compact' hints at limiting output, but the description adds no explicit parameter semantics to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a clear verb ('Build'), names a specific deliverable ('compact restored context'), and states concrete scenarios ('startup, history recovery, or project continuation'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like memory_recall or memory_search, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to recognize when this tool is relevant.

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 gives clear contexts for use: startup, history recovery, or project continuation. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the stated scenarios provide enough situational guidance to make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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