assemble_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It vaguely suggests a selective role ('minimal', 'relevant') but does not state whether it modifies state, requires auth, returns specific data formats, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with 16 parameters.

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 one sentence, making it short, but for a tool with 16 parameters and no annotations, this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The single sentence does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail.

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 the tool's complexity (16 params, no annotations, no sibling differentiation), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return behavior (despite an output schema existing), usage context, and parameter semantics, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The one-sentence description adds no parameter meaning beyond the raw parameter names, leaving 16 parameters (including budgets, keys, and flags) undocumented.

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 uses the specific verb 'Assemble' and names the resources (Core Context, policy, relevant memory) for a task, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling memory-management tools. However, terms like 'Core Context' and 'effective policy' are jargon that could benefit from elaboration.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (manage_memory, maintain_memory_lifecycle), no exclusions, and no alternative recommendations. The purpose implies some context, but usage context is entirely absent.

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