Read what Andru knows about you

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return grouping ('What I Know,' 'Patterns I've Noticed,' 'How You Operate'), but does not discuss freshness, source, limitations, or how open-world behavior applies.

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 short and mostly front-loaded with the usage trigger. The opening phrase 'The context behind every step' is slightly vague but does not obscure the actionable guidance.

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, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description does enough: it states the trigger and outlines the returned categories. It could be stronger by clarifying how it differs from sibling memory/profile tools, but it is sufficient to call the tool 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level ambiguity. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 resource: stored context about the person and their company, including profile, product, and memory. It distinguishes this from generic identity lookup by framing it as 'what Andru knows about them,' though it does not explicitly name overlapping sibling tools such as whoami or get_memory_history.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: use when the person asks what Andru knows about them or their company. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the primary usage condition is clear.

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