mem_context

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds transparency about the 400-character preview with `content_truncated` and the default project scoping, which are not captured in annotations.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it returns, how scoping works, and warning about truncation with a pointer to another tool. No wasted words.

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 an output schema present and 6 parameters fully documented, the description covers the essential behavior: return types, default scope, and truncation. It could mention ordering or that pinned observations may span scopes, but this is sufficient for a tool invocation decision.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning for `project` and `all_projects` by explaining the default behavior ('Answers about the current project unless you pass a project or all_projects'), going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Get pinned and recent observations plus the recent sessions and user prompts of a project.' This specifies a concrete action and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool mem_get_observation by noting that tool is for reading full observations.

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?

It explains the default scope ('Answers about the current project unless you pass a project or all_projects') and points to an alternative for full reads ('read one in full with mem_get_observation'). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance for other siblings, but the context is clear.

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