memo_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the pack includes dynamic recent context (up to 5 memories updated in last 7 days), static profile, query hits, omissions, and is read-only. It also mentions budget trimming. No contradiction.

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. First sentence states purpose clearly. Second sentence elaborates on content and differentiates from sibling. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, behavioral traits, and high-level output structure. All relevant aspects are addressed for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it does provide context on how budget_chars and snippet_chars affect output. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Build prompt-ready memory context without calling the answer LLM.' It contrasts with memo_search's raw hit list, specifying that this returns a budgeted, prompt-ready context pack with static profile, dynamic recent context, query hits, omissions, and a readonly prompt wrapper. This distinguishes it from siblings and is specific about what it 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 explicitly says 'Read-only. Unlike memo_search's raw hit list, this returns a budgeted, prompt-ready context pack for direct injection.' It tells when to use this tool (when needing a prompt-ready pack) and when to use an alternative (memo_search for raw hits). This provides clear guidance.

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