get_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 states that the tool 'retrieves' context, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose authentication expectations, side effect behavior, failure modes, or how the durable memory is selected or scoped.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and object efficiently, earning every word.

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?

With six parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and only one sibling, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the tool's parameter semantics, authentication context, and selection behavior remain unclear.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. 'Caller input' loosely maps to the input parameter and 'compact' hints at max_context_chars, but token, session_id, include_chunks, and diary_lookback_days are entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('compact durable memory context') tied to the caller input. It clearly distinguishes itself from the only sibling, ingest_turn, by framing this as a retrieval operation versus an ingestion one.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus ingest_turn, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description implies a retrieval use case but does not explain when this is the right choice or when another tool should be preferred.

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