get_user_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the tool returns identity, session, and memory summary, and illustrates this with an example. It reinforces the safe, read-only nature without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (WHAT IT RETURNS, WHEN TO CALL, EXAMPLE USAGE) and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. It is somewhat lengthy but each section adds value, especially given the absence of an output schema.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description fully compensates by detailing the return payload, usage timing, and an example. It provides complete context for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist to elaborate on.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current user's cognitive identity and active session context.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on identity and session context, and further clarifies it is 'the core of Purmemo's identity layer.'

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 'WHEN TO CALL' section provides explicit usage scenarios: at the start of a new session, when the user requests context, and before making recommendations. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but given the tool's unique role among siblings, this is sufficient guidance.

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