memory_orchestrate_context

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

While no annotations are present, the description details key behaviors: it splits budget into sections (bedrock constants, proactive warnings, relevance recall), repeats bedrock constants, supports session-based deduplication, and returns specific fields. It does not mention destructive actions or authentication needs, but these are not critical for a read-like context assembly tool.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a one-sentence summary of the tool's purpose, then provides key details in a bullet-like flow. Every sentence adds meaningful information without 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?

Given the three parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the returned fields (text, sections, used_tokens, max_tokens, emphasis) and explains the budget-aware behavior. It could explicitly confirm the tool is non-destructive, but the context-packing nature implies it is read-only. The description compensates well for the lack of an output schema.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the role of 'task' (drives which memories are gathered), the approximate nature of 'max_tokens' budget, and how 'session_id' enables iterative deepening. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Assemble a rich, budget-aware context block for a task.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'memory_context_pack' by explaining it is a higher-level alternative that splits the budget into sections.

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 clear context for usage: it compares to 'memory_context_pack' and explains that passing a 'session_id' skips already delivered memories for iterative deepening. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or specify alternatives among the other siblings.

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