Recall context within a token budget

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

The description adds behavioral detail not present in the schema: it uses a greedy packing algorithm to fit the token budget and produces a ready-to-inject context block. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like ordering of memories, behavior with no results, or whether the output is plain text or structured, leaving some burden unaddressed given no 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action (returns most critical memories) and packs in the budget constraint and output format. No filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, the description is the only source for understanding return values and edge cases. It fails to specify what a 'context block' looks like, how memories are ordered, or what happens if no memories are found, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool that is meant to produce injectable context.

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 only 33%, with only tokenBudget having a description. The tool description does not clarify the semantics of query or userId beyond calling it a 'query', leaving these parameters under-documented. The greedy/token-budget wording reinforces tokenBudget but does not compensate for the missing explanations of the other two parameters.

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 it returns the most critical memories for a query, with a token budget constraint and a ready-to-inject context block output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search by emphasizing the context-injection purpose and budget optimization, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling comparator.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus memory_search, memory_write, or memory_forget. The description implies a use case for budget-constrained context injection, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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