assemble_active_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the data sources but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates any memory, what the return value looks like, or what 'active context' means practically. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It is concise and easy to read, though the brevity leaves out usage and behavioral details that could be included without much bloat.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain what the assembled context returns and when to use the tool. It only lists the input sources, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool or interpret its results.

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 100% coverage with descriptive parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already explains query, mode, limit, and session_id adequately.

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 verb 'assemble' and specifies the resources (prompt modules, markdown memory, SQLite memory), making the primary function clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by implying a cross-source aggregation, though 'active context' remains somewhat vague.

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 when a combined context from multiple memory sources is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like retrieve_session_context or memory_search. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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