pre_turn

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

The description discloses that the tool is non-destructive (loads context), that its output should be folded silently into the answer, and that it is a compact combination of status and get_context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects or modifies any state. Given no annotations, this is good but not fully exhaustive.

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 relatively concise (about 60 words) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it mixes instructions and context in a single paragraph, which could be better structured for readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It only says 'fold what it returns silently into your answer' without any description of the format or structure of the returned context. This is a significant gap for an agent relying on the description.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional detail beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'Current topic or question' is similar to schema). Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: loading relevant past context before replying. It identifies itself as 'MEMORY LOOP — STEP 1' and contrasts with sibling tools like 'get_context' and 'store_turn', distinguishing its role.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (substantive turns, not trivial or empty graph) and sequential instructions (call first, then reply, then call store_turn). It also mentions when to skip and that it's ideal for clients without automatic injection hooks.

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