memory_context_pack

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 not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The behavioral impact of the trust score is also unclear.

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?

Concise intro followed by structured bullet points for args. No redundant information, but the brevity leaves some gaps in behavioral context.

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?

The description defines inputs well but does not mention return value structure or behavior (e.g., when no results). Although an output schema exists, it is not visible here, and the description should provide more context for a retrieval 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 0%, but the description adds meaning for all four parameters (query, scope, limit, min_trust) with clear explanations. It compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though format details are lacking.

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 'Return trusted memory context for a task' with a clear verb and resource. It specifies the action and hints at trust filtering, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like memory_search_context or remember_context.

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. With many sibling memory tools, the absence of context or exclusions makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly.

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