prepare_context

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral insights. It explains the three output formats with token budgets but omits any details about side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavior is partially transparent but not fully disclosed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then detail the formatting. Every sentence provides unique value without repetition or unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the return value or payload structure. The agent is left guessing what the output looks like (e.g., a string, JSON, markdown). This lack of completeness is a significant gap for a tool generating payloads.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies 'plan' as 'What the team is about to do', elaborates on format options with token budgets, notes that 'agent_role' is reserved for Phase 3, and provides default token budgets for max_tokens. This extra detail justifies a score of 4.

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 tool's purpose: generating portable memory payloads for sub-agent injection. It specifies the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'portable memory payload', and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on injection payloads, which no other tool does.

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 implies usage for sub-agent injection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recall' or 'archive_learning'. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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