memory_get_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses precisely what the tool returns (last 10 conversation summaries, all user facts, exact formatted view) and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' and purpose of auditing. However, it doesn't explicitly state safety or side effects, but for a getter this is sufficient.

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 long, front-loads the action and content, and the second sentence provides practical value without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when it's useful. It covers the necessary behavioral and usage details, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none; it correctly focuses on the tool's output and purpose.

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 explicitly states the function: 'Get the full memory context that AION injects into its system prompt,' with concrete details about content (last 10 conversation summaries, all user facts) and format ('formatted exactly as AION sees them'). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_get_facts by specifying the full context, making it clearly separate.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for auditing what AION knows.' This implies when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to memory_get_facts or memory_search. Thus it has clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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