amem_context

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' and 'local' imply a read-only, offline operation, but it never states there are no side effects, whether results can be empty, or how much is returned. Nothing is contradicted, but a mutation-free guarantee and result-shape hint are missing.

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 short sentences with the core action first, the usage trigger second, and the parameter caveat last. No filler, nothing buried.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 75% of parameters undocumented, the definition leaves real gaps: what 'compact memory' looks like on return, whether memory must first be written via amem_remember, and what platform/sessionId do. Adequate to attempt a call with just a query, but incomplete.

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 only 25% across four parameters. The description touches only workspace, and its wording ('named app memory, not only git repos') largely restates the schema's own 'Named workspace (not a git repo)'. The query, platform, and sessionId parameters are unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve compact local amem memory for a query.' Clear what it does and the local/compact nature. It does not differentiate from the obvious write counterpart amem_remember or from amem_graph, which also retrieves memory, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use before exploring files or calling a remote LLM with a large prompt' gives a concrete invocation context and implicitly a cost-saving rationale. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it (e.g., when memory is stale or empty).

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