wake_up

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context: it glues two memory sources onto a shared budget where recap gets at most half and inject the rest, and it emits a cache:break between the two markdown halves. That budget-splitting and cache-boundary behavior is genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the composition/budget mechanics follow in two tight sentences. The parenthetical codename is mild clutter but the whole thing is appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% param coverage the description should explain layer/user_id and give at least minimal when-to-use routing, which it does not.

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 0% and all three parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description touches the token 'budget' (shared, split half/half) but says nothing about 'layer' or 'user_id', leaving two of three parameters with no semantics anywhere.

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 specific effect -- 'one-call memory lift for a fresh session' -- and names the two internal operations it composes (memory_recap continuity pack plus inject critical set). It is clear what the tool produces, though the internal jargon (E10, Stage 2-C) adds noise rather than meaning, and it never contrasts itself with the actual siblings (memory_hook, think, evolve).

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?

'for a fresh session' is the only usage signal, implying it is the session-start entry point. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing against the sibling tools (memory_hook, think, dream), so the agent must infer selection.

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