build_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it explains the tool builds context for conversations and provides format details, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it modifies data, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage guidance, then details parameter formats with clear sections. While comprehensive, every sentence serves a purpose - explaining the tool's function, when to use it, and parameter specifics. It could be slightly more concise by integrating some format details more tightly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, memory system interaction) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good context about the tool's purpose and key parameters. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics coverage, it doesn't fully prepare an agent for all aspects of tool invocation. The output schema existence helps, but behavioral aspects remain under-specified.

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?

The description provides extensive information about the 'url' parameter format (memory:// URIs, pattern matching, valid characters, examples) and 'timeframe' parameter (natural language and standard formats). With 0% schema description coverage, this adds substantial value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of 'depth', 'project', 'page', 'page_size', or 'max_related' parameters, leaving half the parameters without semantic explanation.

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: 'Build context from a memory:// URI to continue conversations naturally.' This specifies the verb ('build context') and resource ('memory:// URI'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_note' or 'search_notes' that might also access memory content. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to follow up on previous discussions or explore related topics.' This gives guidance on when to use the tool (for conversation continuity or topic exploration). However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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