Get assembled context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the use of hybrid retrieval, optional graph expansion, and token budgeting, but does not clarify read-only behavior, return format, or what happens when the token budget is exceeded.

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 two dense sentences with no filler: the core mechanism is front-loaded, followed by a usage cue. Every sentence 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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a good high-level purpose but omits important operational details: what the assembled context looks like, how scoping params (userId/projectId/sessionId) interact, and how it differs from recall/search_history. The schema covers param semantics but not these behaviors.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds little beyond alluding to query via 'hybrid retrieval' and maxTokens via 'token budgeting'; it does not explain parameter interactions or the effect of includeGraph/includeHistory.

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 (assemble), resource (relevant memories), and method (hybrid retrieval with optional memory-graph expansion and token budgeting). It clearly identifies the tool's purpose beyond the title, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling retrieval tools like recall or search_history.

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 an explicit usage cue: 'Use to load memory into context before a task.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some sibling ambiguity.

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