Recall User Context

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns by disclosing the poisoning gate may quarantine unsafe legacy/session summaries. It also reveals scope-resolution precedence (project > cwd > process working directory), output structure, and error conditions. This goes well beyond the annotations to explain behavior and side effects.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by critical behavioral notes, scope rules, output summary, alternatives, and error conditions. Each sentence is packed with necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 13 parameters and meaningful side effects.

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 complexity (13 params, output schema, annotations), the description covers the key aspects: what it assembles, the poisoning side effect, scope handling, output format, alternatives, and failure modes. It does not need to enumerate every parameter since the schema is thorough, and the output schema exists to define return values.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the interplay between project, cwd, and the current process working directory, and by emphasizing the non-blank requirement for query. It does not detail every parameter, but the schema already describes each one; the description meaningfully enhances scope-related parameters.

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 starts with 'Assemble task-aware user context from safe claims...' which provides a specific verb (assemble) and resource (user context) plus the source material. It distinguishes from siblings by naming search and current_state and explaining the different selection strategy. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 'Use search for exhaustive memory matches and current_state for one exact stable key; this tool selects a bounded context bundle instead.' This names two alternatives and gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes the requirement for a non-blank query, which acts as a precondition.

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