prefetch_memories

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

The description states 'conservative' but does not clarify behavior like whether it mutates state, requires special permissions, or how it selects memories. With no annotations provided, the description only partially discloses the tool's traits; it is adequate but lacks important details.

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 a single short sentence. It is concise but lacks structure and does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail. More context could be added without being verbose.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need for return description), the description is still too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter or the output format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (max_chars, max_tokens, max_memories). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Missing schema descriptions for 'agent', 'message', and 'summaries_only' are not compensated by the description.

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 specific action 'Ask' and identifies the resource as 'conservative memory context relevant to a message.' It distinguishes from sibling 'search_memories' by implying a focused, limited retrieval. However, the verb 'Ask' is slightly unusual and the exact nature of the output is vague.

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 explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_memories'. The phrase 'conservative memory context' hints at a specific use case, but there is no direct guidance on when to prefer this tool or when to avoid it.

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