Build XMemo context

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that memory items that do not fit the bounds are omitted and reported, and advises raising max_tokens or using recall if the records themselves are needed. This adds real behavioral context not present in the structured 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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, then weaves in usage guidance and a behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place; no filler or 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 tool has 13 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, how bounds behave, and how it differs from siblings. The output schema handles return format details, so the description doesn't need to describe them. It's complete for this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that max_items/max_tokens bound the output and that omitted items are reported, which ties these parameters to observable behavior. This goes slightly beyond the schema's field-level 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Build a read-only, bounded context pack from multiple relevant memories.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming recall and get_project_context as alternatives with different purposes. This makes the tool's unique role immediately obvious.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: 'when an answer needs several memory items or scoped/path-filtered context.' It also provides exclusions and alternatives: 'use recall for a quick best-effort lookup or get_project_context for a whole-project snapshot.' This is explicit, actionable guidance.

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