nmem_situation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile ('Pure read — never mutates state') plus the bounded output shape (top 3 decisions, active task, blockers). It stops short of explaining what 'gap detection' actually surfaces or whether results are scoped to a session/user, which would be useful for a read tool with no output schema.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the content enumeration is front-loaded and the behavioral guarantee comes last as a natural closing caveat.

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 read-only snapshot tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, how it relates to sibling tools, and its non-mutating nature. Minor gaps remain around the semantics of 'gap detection' and result scoping, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters (compact, token_budget) are already documented with their token-saving behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('one-shot snapshot of the current working situation') and enumerates exactly what it returns: active session task, top 3 recent decisions, open blockers, gap detection. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings nmem_recap and nmem_recall, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Names the alternatives it supersedes (nmem_recap + multiple nmem_recall calls) and the condition that selects it ('when resuming a session'). It is a clear when-to-use with alternatives, but omits any when-not guidance (e.g. for narrow single-topic lookups where nmem_recall is cheaper).

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