raggy_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers substantial context: one-shot invocation policy, first-action ordering, empty-result semantics, and a fallback path to raggy_recall. However, it does not disclose whether loading memories has side effects on stored state, nor what the response format contains beyond being possibly empty.

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 sentences and roughly 50 words, with the most critical instruction ('MANDATORY FIRST ACTION of every session') front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: when to call, what query to use, and when to fall back to raggy_recall — zero filler.

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?

The call pattern is fully specified, which is the most important information for a mandatory session-start tool. However, with no output schema, the return-value contract is vague — it only implies results can be empty — and it does not explain how the agent should consume the loaded memories or what to do if the call fails.

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%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description adds genuine parameter-level guidance: 'with their initial request as the query' tells the agent exactly what value to pass into the query parameter for the primary call. This operational instruction goes beyond the schema's generic 'Additional context query' text.

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 states a specific action with a clear verb and resource: 'Loads relevant memories from prior sessions.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming raggy_recall as the targeted-lookup alternative, and the 'MANDATORY FIRST ACTION of every session' framing positions it uniquely among the raggy_* family.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and complete: 'MANDATORY FIRST ACTION of every session. Call ONCE before answering the first user message with their initial request as the query' tells the agent exactly when and how to invoke it. It also provides an exclusion rule ('Do not make a second call unless this returned empty') and names the alternative tool (raggy_recall) for the fallback case.

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