memory_context_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (pinned entities, last 10 recent activities, recently changed entities) and the expected token cost (~500-1500 tokens). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, which would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with no fluff. The most important information (purpose and when to use) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description lacks parameter explanations, which are essential for correct usage. The tool's purpose and usage context are well covered, but the missing parameter semantics reduces completeness significantly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning descriptions are entirely absent from the schema. The tool description fails to explain the 'project' and 'budget' parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how they affect the output (e.g., does 'budget' control the token limit?). This is a critical gap.

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 explicitly states it returns a rich context snapshot with pinned entities, full observations, recent activity, and recently changed entities. It distinguishes itself from 'memory_context' by specifying a different use case (deep bootstrap vs ordinary scoped recall). The verb 'returns' clarifies the action.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use only when compact recall is insufficient for a cross-session task' and 'Prefer memory_context for ordinary scoped recall.' This explicitly tells when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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