context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Return' implies a non-destructive read operation, and 'ready-to-inject' hints at formatting, but the description does not disclose side effects, whether memories are modified, or the exact output format. This is partially transparent but lacks explicit safety or behavioral details.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits details about the return structure (what a 'context block' looks like), the role of 'k', and any edge cases like empty results. Without an output schema or annotations, these omissions leave the description incomplete for understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 input schema lists 'query' and 'k' with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description clarifies that 'query' is the basis for selecting relevant memories, but it does not explain 'k', which likely controls the number of memories returned. Without any parameter documentation in the schema, the description only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('context block of the most relevant memories'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'recall' which likely returns raw memories. The addition of 'ready-to-inject' clarifies its purpose further.

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 is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings such as recall or find. The description does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when to use it.

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