memory_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers substantial behavioral detail: the fixed assembly order, conditional recall on query, and the review-gate state machine (status=blocked, retry flag, prerequisite cleanup via review tools). The blocked/retry workflow is non-obvious and not inferable from the schema. It stops short of stating whether the operation has side effects or how a successful response is structured.

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?

Two dense sentences with the primary assembly behavior front-loaded before the conditional review-gate flow. Every clause carries information — assembly blocks, ordering, query conditionality, and the blocked-state retry procedure. It is slightly dense with domain terminology but efficient overall with no filler.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, so the description must cover both return values and parameter semantics. It explains the blocked status and retry path but never describes the success response shape, and leaves scope (required), k, and current_turn undefined. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool reliably on the first attempt.

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 only explains two of five parameters: query (triggers recall) and acknowledge_pending (retry after user confirmation). The required parameter scope is never defined at all, and k (despite its default of 5) and current_turn are also left unexplained. An agent cannot determine valid scope values or what k controls, which is a critical gap for the only required parameter.

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 ('统一组装注入上下文' — uniformly assemble and inject context) and names the exact resources: resident profile block, working memory block, and recall block, with their concatenation order. This composition detail differentiates it from siblings like memory_wm_read or memory_search that handle only individual memory pieces. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the assembly semantics make the tool's role clear.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: recall is only performed when query is passed ('传 query 才检索历史记忆'). It also specifies a concrete edge-case workflow with named alternatives — when status=blocked, retry with acknowledge_pending=true or first process pending items via memory_review_list / memory_review_resolve. It does not contrast normal-use selection against siblings like memory_search or memory_wm_read, but the blocked-state routing is explicit and actionable.

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