context_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behaviors: deduplication, score ranking, and character budget (with cognitive load reference). This adds context beyond a generic 'pack' statement. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, whether it affects memory state, what happens with insufficient matches, or return format.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and packs meaningful details without redundant phrasing.

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 a short description, the tool has 3 parameters with no coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the core idea but omits parameter details, return value structure, and edge cases. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it is not fully complete.

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. It indirectly maps 'several queries' to the 'queries' parameter, 'character-budgeted' to 'max_chars', and 'score-ranked' to 'top_k', but it does not explicitly explain the parameters or their constraints (e.g., required queries, ranges, defaults). This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb 'Pack' with the resource 'memories' and clarifies scope: 'for several queries' and 'into one bounded context'. It lists key behaviors (deduplicated, score-ranked, character-budgeted) which differentiate it from single-query recall/search tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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 clearly implies usage context: for packing memories relevant to multiple queries within a bounded context. It mentions 'character-budgeted' which signals when context limits matter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_batch or working_set, nor state when not to use it.

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