管家记忆-上下文

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve', implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether the tool writes to memory, how the 'current task' is identified, what side effects exist, or what the returned context looks like.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though its brevity comes at the cost of omitting important operational details.

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?

For a tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is not enough to support correct invocation. It also fails to explain what 'context' is returned or how this differs from the memory_search sibling, leaving a material gap.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters: kind, limit, query, and scope. An agent has no guidance on what values to provide or how these parameters affect retrieval.

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 states a specific verb ('检索', retrieve) and a specific resource ('管家记忆上下文', butler memory context), so an agent can tell this is a memory-retrieval operation. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling memory_search, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 only implies use based on the 'current task' and gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over memory_search, memory_save, or memory_update. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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