Get memory context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral context: the tier-specific return shape, that entries carrying metadata.recording return with resolved links, and that after/before bound memory_at exactly as search_memory does. It does not disclose pagination or size limits, keeping it shy of a 5.

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?

Purpose and read-only status are front-loaded, then filtering semantics, then sibling routing. It is dense but every sentence carries unique information (tier behavior, episode convention, time bounds, alternatives). Slightly long as one unbroken paragraph, which costs a point.

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 9 parameters, an output schema already present, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: how tiers differ, how to filter, how to target the playbook, and how it relates to sibling memory tools. Nothing required for correct invocation is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above-baseline credit by explaining the semantics the schema only names: the metadata.episode {location, task, outcome} convention behind location/task, and that after/before are exact memory_at bounds matching search_memory. playbook_id is also clarified as a UUID or GUID.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Get a context-optimized view of memories') and immediately specifies the per-tier treatment (full working, summaries for contextual, keys only for longterm). It explicitly names the siblings it is not (read_memory, search_memory, get_memory_tree), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('use this to pack a prompt') followed by a routing table to alternatives with their distinct conditions: read_memory for one key, search_memory to filter by text or tags, get_memory_tree for parent-child task graphs. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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