memory_boot

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

Annotations mark this readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description correctly explains why: it 'never changes memory content' but 'records that the returned precious entries were shown.' That reconciles the non-read-only flag with a content-preserving side effect, and adds useful caching context ('stable and deterministically ordered so the client can cache it'). It stops short of describing cost, latency, or failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload contents, then usage rules, then the side-effect caveat — a logical order with no filler. The first sentence is a long enumeration, but each item listed is genuinely informative rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself (the { data: {...} } shape, its constituent sections, and its deterministic ordering). Combined with the usage rule and side-effect disclosure, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly once per session.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (namespace) and schema description coverage is 100%, including the default and the fixed-namespace override case. The description adds nothing about it, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 names a specific operation (cold-start context package) and enumerates exactly what it bundles: yesterday's diary log, weekly/monthly summaries, 20 most recent precious entries, glossary terms, and perception items. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like memory_recall and memory_search, which it explicitly routes around.

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?

It states the when ('call once at session start, not every turn') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('for per-question lookups use memory_recall'). Both the trigger and the explicit exclusion are present, so routing is unambiguous.

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