get_my_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'condensed summary plus recent memories' with 'cryptographic verification status', implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or behavior when no memories exist.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the usage recommendation, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 description explains the return value (condensed summary + memories + verification) and the use case, compensating reasonably for the lack of output schema. It could elaborate on the 'condensed summary' format or include examples, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (limit and verified_only). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already provided in the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('user's portable, verified AI conversation history from ChainMemory'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying it returns a condensed summary plus recent memories from multiple platforms with cryptographic verification status, and explicitly recommends using it 'at the start of a conversation'.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'at the start of a conversation to provide continuity across AI providers', which is clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like list_memories_filtered or chainmemory_recall.

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