memory_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('get') but doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or what it returns. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, rate limits, or consequences of calling without parameters. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks depth.

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: two sentences with the purpose first, then specific usage conditions. No wasted words. It's well-structured and front-loaded with the core function, though it could add a brief note on parameters without becoming verbose.

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 tool has an output schema but the description doesn't hint at what is returned, nor how the optional parameters affect the response. Given it's a context retrieval tool with three optional inputs, the description should at least suggest how they scope the query. The when-to-use guidance is strong, but the missing parameter semantics and return behavior leave significant gaps.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (project, file_paths, task_description). Since all are optional, the agent has no idea how they influence the returned knowledge. The description must compensate for the schema's lack of info but fails to do so.

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 clear purpose: 'Get your profile and relevant team knowledge for current work.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('profile and relevant team knowledge'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from memory_recall, but the 'for current work' qualifier suggests context retrieval, distinguishing it from generic recall. Slight ambiguity remains about its exact overlap with siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: starting a new task, switching codebase areas, or wanting team conventions. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the conditions are clear and actionable. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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