memory_context

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that. It explains the exact semantics of max_chars (bounds serialized array, not wrapper), how omitted records are reported (omitted_from_page vs returned_after_budget vs retrieval.returned), and the behavior of compact view (never truncates body, never invents provenance, preserves source_summary details). No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense yet well-structured: purpose first, then max_chars semantics, view behavior, source_summary note, and a usage recommendation. Every sentence adds essential information with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and keeps related details grouped logically.

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 tool with a nested selection parameter, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: budget semantics, view differences, and the relationship with memory_history. It explains the response fields (omitted_from_page, returned_after_budget, retrieval.returned) sufficiently for an agent to interpret results correctly. The suggested startup read provides a practical entry point. No obvious gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for the key parameters: max_chars (explains exactly what it bounds and how records are dropped) and view (explains full vs compact and what compact includes/excludes). It also gives a recommended value for limit. It doesn't elaborate on the selection object's fields, but that's detailed in the schema, and the description's core purpose is clear.

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 purpose: retrieving bounded reference memories for the current task with scope and validity constraints. It clearly differentiates from memory_history by naming it as the alternative for full evidence, and the view options (full vs compact) further distinguish its behavior from other memory tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: when full evidence is needed, use memory_history instead. It also provides a concrete recommended startup read (view='compact', max_chars=6000, limit=8) and explains the trade-offs between full and compact views, making it clear when to choose each.

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