memo_context

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool is read-only and details the returned components (static profile, dynamic context, query hits, omissions, prompt wrapper). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences suffice to convey the core purpose and behavior. No redundancies; every sentence adds value.

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?

With 8 parameters (some configurable like k, budget_chars, include_dynamic) and no param explanations in either schema or description, the description is incomplete for effective usage. The output schema exists but input semantics are missing.

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 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides no additional information about any parameter. The description only mentions what the tool returns, not how parameters control behavior.

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 builds 'prompt-ready memory context' without calling the answer LLM, and lists the components it returns (static profile, dynamic context, query hits, omissions, prompt wrapper). This distinguishes it from siblings like memo_ask which would call the LLM.

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 building context without invoking the LLM ('without calling the answer LLM') and highlights read-only nature, but does not explicitly specify when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives like memo_get or memo_search.

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