get_session_context

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it's '자동 실행 권장' (recommended for automatic execution) at session start, which helps the agent understand timing and importance. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or specific error behaviors beyond what annotations cover.

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 well-structured with purpose, usage recommendation, keywords, and examples. However, the keyword section ('키워드: 세션 시작...') and examples could be slightly trimmed as they partially repeat the main points. Most sentences earn their place by reinforcing when and how to use the tool.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, timing, and examples. It covers the 'why' and 'when' well. However, it doesn't describe the return format (what '메모리, 지식 그래프, 최근 작업 내역' looks like) or potential limitations, which would help the agent interpret results.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions general filtering ('프로젝트의 컨텍스트를 빠르게 파악' - quickly grasp project context) but no details on parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: '조회합니다' (retrieves) '이전 세션의 메모리, 지식 그래프, 최근 작업 내역' (previous session's memory, knowledge graph, recent work history). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_memories' or 'get_memory_graph' by emphasizing it's a comprehensive context retrieval for session start, not just memory listing or graph analysis.

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 explicit guidance: '[새 대화/세션 시작 시 자동 실행 권장]' (recommended to run automatically at new conversation/session start) and '이 도구는 새로운 대화를 시작할 때 가장 먼저 실행하면 좋습니다' (this tool is good to run first when starting a new conversation). It implicitly suggests alternatives by specifying this is for session context, not for other analysis tasks handled by siblings.

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