Get full situational context (the brain's recap)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool reconstructs context including project state, journal timeline, and memories, and describes the global recap without a projectId. This gives a solid understanding of what to expect, though it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only) or performance implications.

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 three sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds valuable information: the main functionality, conditional behavior, and when to call it. There is no unnecessary wording or redundancy.

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 context-reconstruction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality and the two modes well. However, it omits details about the eventLimit parameter and does not describe the return format or structure, which leaves some incompleteness. It is sufficient for an initial understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the projectId parameter well by detailing the difference between providing it and not. However, the eventLimit parameter is entirely unexplained; the description does not mention how it affects the results or its default behavior, leaving a gap.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('reconstructs context') and outlines the exact scope: what is happening, what has happened, and what to do next. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing two modes (with/without projectId) and mentioning journal timeline and memories, which differentiates it from tools like get_project_state or list_projects.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'at the START of any session that continues earlier work, after context loss, or whenever unsure what already happened.' It does not name specific alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the conditional behavior (with/without projectId) offers clear situational context.

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