engrim_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation ('Return') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, truncation behavior, or limits beyond the character budget parameter. It lacks details on what happens if the budget is exceeded or how the pack is constructed.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could arguably add more structure or bullet points if needed.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, and the incomplete parameter information (project is undocumented), the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain the return format, what constitutes 'high-signal records,' or how the project parameter behaves. The tool is simple, but the missing context around parameters and output leaves 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?

The description mentions 'within a character budget,' which aligns with the budget parameter, but the project parameter is completely undocumented in the schema (0% schema description) and the description does not clarify it. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter meaning, leaving agents uncertain about the 'auto' default and acceptable values.

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 verb ('Return') and a clearly defined resource ('the project's session-boot memory pack'), and even elaborates on its purpose ('curated, high-signal records that orient you at the start of work'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like engrim_recall or engrim_add, which clearly serve different operations.

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 implies it is intended for session start ('orient you at the start of work') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from engrim_recall.

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