Assemble Memory Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds the token-budgeted behavior but does not disclose details like whether results are cached, how 'working context' is generated, or if there are performance implications. Some value added beyond annotations, but limited.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail about behavior and parameters without verbosity.

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 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema provided (though it exists), and a large sibling toolset, the description is too minimal to fully equip an agent to use this tool effectively. Key aspects like the effect of 'auto', token budget constraints, and result structure are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., auto, limit, query, budget_tokens, explain_results, include_sensitive, include_working_memory). Only a vague hint about 'explicit query or generated working context' is given, which is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 returns token-budgeted memory context, specifying two modes (explicit query or generated working context). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory.search or memory.graph, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools (e.g., memory.search, memory.get, memory.working_current), the absence of usage context makes selection difficult for the agent.

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