mem_context_pack

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions optimization for fewer tokens but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether the pack is read-only. The behavioral traits are minimal.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise without fluff, though could expand slightly on key behavior.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return format, error conditions, or parameter interactions, which are critical for correct usage.

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters (project_key, budget, max_chars, known_pack_hash, session_id). Agent cannot infer how to set them beyond their names and basic types/enums.

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 a compact continuity pack to carry context forward with fewer tokens, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like mem_get by focusing on a 'pack' rather than a single context item, but could be more explicit about the exact format.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mem_session_list or mem_get. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or suitability for different tasks.

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