Memory Context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that the returned context is 'the backend's own injection format' and should be treated as opaque text, and it advises calling only once. This is valuable behavioral context beyond what the schema provides, though it does not mention side effects, errors, or auth requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action in the first sentence, usage timing in the second, and the critical behavioral caveat in the third. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential operational details: when to call, what the result is, and how to handle it. An output schema exists to document return values. The only minor gap is lack of guidance on what happens when there is no memory or how this relates to sibling memory tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four optional parameters. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, which keeps this at the baseline score of 3.

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 and resource ('Load the user's memory') and defines the output as 'text ready to put in your context.' The additional note about the backend's injection format and prepending it to the conversation clearly separates this from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_get, which imply structured retrieval.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call this once near the start of a task.' It also explains how to use the result ('prepend it to the conversation rather than parsing it'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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