memory_context

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

Annotations only establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: bounded results, subject scoping, the no-match caveat, the max_chars envelope semantics, and seen-signature handling. There is no contradiction with 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?

Every sentence carries operational value, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before caveats. The prose is dense but not padded, and the parameter guidance is integrated naturally rather than repeated from the schema.

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?

Given no output schema and six parameters, the description covers the main behaviors well: result subject scope, limit semantics, include_general usage, and seen signature handling. The missing episode_id and the somewhat opaque 'requirements signature' phrasing keep it from being fully complete, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly for the common paths.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining include_general, max_chars, seen, and subject behavior. However, query is only implied through 'research/evidence,' and episode_id is never explained, leaving two of six parameters under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve bounded evidence in one subject before repeating research.' It states the tool's scope precisely and helps distinguish it from memory_get by positioning memory_context as the follow-up search when additional evidence is needed.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: 'For continuing a named work item, begin with memory_get next; use this context search when additional evidence is needed.' It also instructs when to use include_general, warns about the requirements signature, and explains the limit behavior, so an agent knows when and how to use this tool.

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