suggest

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Returns memories ranked by multi-signal relevance' but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication, rate limits, or details on ranking. While it hints at being read-only, it lacks explicit transparency.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a usage note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides immediate value without extraneous text.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers purpose and usage but lacks parameter details, making it incomplete for proper invocation. Given the complexity, more information on parameters 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'current session context' but does not define the three parameters (context, max_results, session_entities) beyond their names and schema types. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get proactive memory suggestions based on current session context.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('memory suggestions'), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing proactivity without a query, unlike query-based tools like 'recall' or 'search'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'USE THIS WHEN: you want to surface potentially relevant memories without a specific query. Useful at session start or before major decisions.' This tells when to use and implies when not to (when a specific query exists), effectively differentiating from alternatives.

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