nmem_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' plus 'auto-injected context' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and hints that the content feeds automatic injection, but it says nothing about ordering, freshness defaults, or what happens when the token budget is exceeded. The richer behavioral details (token stripping, compact mode, ghost memories, expiry warnings) live only in the parameter descriptions, not the tool description.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core scoping statement is front-loaded ahead of the alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a six-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus the rich parameter descriptions cover enough to invoke it correctly. The only remaining gap is the shape of the returned context, which is partly compensated by parameters like compact, token_budget, and warn_expiry_days that describe response behavior.

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 100% and all six parameters carry clear, substantive descriptions (defaults, ranges, and effects like 'strip metadata hints' or 'calls_expiry_warnings'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get recent memories') and immediately frames the output as 'auto-injected context', which tells the agent what kind of payload to expect. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings (nmem_recall, nmem_recap), so the agent can select it without opening any other schema.

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 ('broad task context') and routes two alternatives by condition: specific queries to nmem_recall, project-level context to nmem_recap. This is a clean when-to-use / which-alternative mapping with nothing left to inference.

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