mcp_engram_context_for_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (JSON with fields like spatial_items, traces_at_locus) and the wake queue requirement. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects, though the context suggests it is a read-only context retrieval. Overall, it is transparent enough for safe invocation.

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 (four sentences plus examples) and front-loaded with the key idea 'pre-edit situated memory.' It packs essential information but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the wake queue note). Still, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description properly explains the return JSON fields. It also mentions the wake queue gate requirement. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of each returned field (e.g., scars_at_locus) or their typical use, which could be helpful for agents unfamiliar with the 'Code atlas' system. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a focused context tool.

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 adds value by explaining that 'line_start' and 'line_end' are optional for a spatial AABB filter, and 'auto_ingest' defaults to true to force ingestion when no items exist. The examples further illustrate parameter combinations.

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 as 'pre-edit situated memory' and lists the specific JSON fields it returns (spatial_items, traces, scars, post_edit_palette). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'mcp_engram_safe_edit_and_verify' by advising to use that tool for substantive edits, indicating a lighter context retrieval 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 guidance: 'Requires wake queue ack when ENGRAM_WAKE_QUEUE_GATE=hard' and 'Prefer mcp_engram_safe_edit_and_verify for substantive edits.' Includes two concrete examples showing standard pre-edit and line-bounded locus usage, clarifying when and how to use the tool.

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