context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the tool's function ('Get a session context summary') and its content ('preferences, decisions, patterns'), but it doesn't explicitly state whether it's read-only, has side effects, or what the return format looks like. The word 'load' could imply state changes, which is ambiguous. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word contributes value. It efficiently states what the tool does and when to use it without redundancy.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the 'what', 'when', and 'content of the summary'. It could be slightly more explicit about the return value's structure, but it names the key contents, making it mostly complete for a simple tool.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already adequately explains all 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('session context summary'), clearly stating what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'recall', but the scope ('preferences, decisions, patterns') is specific enough. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Call at the START of conversations to load preferences, decisions, patterns.' This gives clear contextual guidance on when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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