mem_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses output characteristics (bounded Markdown, previews by default, configurable limit) and points to mem_get for full content. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of context retrieval implies it; this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured, leading with purpose, then usage, then a bulleted list of return items. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds information. Front-loaded and scannable.

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's simplicity (read-only context retrieval with optional filters) and that all parameters are documented in the schema, the description covers purpose, usage, output structure, and a key behavioral nuance. It does not address error cases or detailed parameter interactions, but for a context tool this is sufficient. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return list.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining behavior tied to parameters: 'configurable limit' (limit), 'bounded Markdown' (max_chars), and previewing (related to observation bodies). This goes slightly beyond schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 function: 'Get recent memory context from previous sessions.' It specifies the resource (memory context) and the action (get), and enumerates what it returns (sessions, prompts, observations, stats), distinguishing it from siblings like mem_save and mem_get.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this at the start of a session to recover context, or when the user asks to recall past work.' Also names an alternative: 'use mem_get(id=...) for full content,' giving clear direction for different needs.

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