mempalace_wake_context

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the context is bounded, privacy-scoped, only loads curated drawers in global mode, and never widens in scoped mode. These are substantive behavioral guarantees not present in the annotations, providing clear transparency about scope and limits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key call-to-action ('Start here'), followed by precise mode behaviors. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 presence of a complete input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential conceptual aspects: purpose, mode behavior, scoping rule, and bounded nature. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and the tool's complexity is well-addressed.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that global mode uses wing=global curated content and that scoped mode requires an explicit wing, which directly clarifies how to interpret mode and wing. It also ties the bounded nature of results to the max_chars/max_items 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 clearly states it is the starting point for memory-relevant chats and returns bounded, privacy-scoped startup context, with distinct global and scoped modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is an entry-point aggregator that loads curated drawers, not a search or single-get operation.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('Start here for memory-relevant chats') and clarifies that scoped mode requires an explicit wing and never widens scopes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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