memory_get_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 successfully conveys the SessionStart Hook injection pattern, which is critical operational context. However, it lacks explicit statements about read-only safety, idempotency, caching behavior, or the structure of the returned config/dont data, leaving gaps in the safety/behavioral profile.

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 with zero waste: (1) function definition, (2) automatic usage pattern/warning, (3) exceptional manual usage case. The logical flow moves from what it does, to the common case (don't use), to the edge case (do use). Japanese text is economical and every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter retrieval tool, the description adequately covers the operational context (hook injection) and identifies the returned data categories (config and dont). However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, it could be improved by explicitly confirming the read-only nature of the operation or describing the return format structure.

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 input schema contains zero parameters (empty object). According to calibration rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter documentation where none exist, and the 100% schema coverage is vacuously satisfied.

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 explicitly states the tool performs batch retrieval ('一括取得') of specific resources: 'config' (configuration) and 'dont' (constraints/things not to do). It clarifies what 'context' means in this domain, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like memory_get_detail or memory_search which likely operate on specific memories rather than system context.

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 usage guidance: it states when NOT to use the tool ('通常はSessionStart Hookで自動注入されるため、手動で呼ぶ必要は少ない' - rarely needed manually because it's auto-injected at session start) and specifically when TO use it ('セッション途中でコンテキストを再確認したい場合' - when reconfirming context mid-session). This clear conditional guidance prevents unnecessary invocations.

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