clarik_context_trim

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'returns' and 'within a token budget,' but does not disclose whether the tool modifies memory, how relevance ranking works, or any side effects. The term 'injection' could mislead if the tool only reads.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. It earns its place with no superfluous words, though a slightly more structured format could improve clarity.

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?

No output schema provided, but the description does not detail return format or content. It lacks information on error handling, prerequisites, or token budget enforcement behavior. Given the tool's complexity and sibling set, more completeness is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, simply echoing the token budget concept. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since no significant additional semantics are provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns relevant facts and context within a token budget, distinguishing it from sibling memory tools that may not have a token budget constraint. However, the phrase 'memory injection' is slightly ambiguous about whether it writes or reads.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clarik_memory_recall or clarik_memory_list. The description implies it is for context retrieval with a token budget, but does not state when not to use it or provide specific usage scenarios.

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