get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the output is a pre-formatted string, but it does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or default behavior for missing parameters (though the schema mentions defaults).

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 with two sentences: one for action and one for output. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 that the input schema fully documents parameters and no output schema exists, the description adequately explains the purpose and output format. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not explain how the context is assembled from memories in relation to sibling tools, leaving some gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; the schema already describes each parameter sufficiently. The description's mention of 'stored memories' is generic and does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 that the tool assembles a smart context block from memories and returns a pre-formatted string for system prompts. It specifies the verb 'assemble' and resource 'context block', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_memory or get_profile.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many memory retrieval tools, but there is no mention of when to prefer get_context over get_memory or query.

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