memory_get_context

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description usefully discloses the composite nature of the result (citations, conflicts, history, passages). However, it says nothing about cost or latency behavior for a fan-out assembly call, nothing about how the max_tokens budget constrains output, and nothing about how history inclusion changes the response, so added value beyond annotations is moderate.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing advice placed second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and rich temporal/scope options, the definition is too thin to call the tool correctly. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the temporal semantics, token budget, and when to set include_history remain undocumented anywhere in the definition.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and fails to meet it. It never explains the temporal controls (as_of vs. time_from/time_to), project scoping, participants filtering, max_tokens, or the include_history toggle, leaving the agent to guess from bare property names.

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 gives a specific verb ('Assemble') and resource ('context for a question') and enumerates the payload (memories with citations, history, conflicts, source passages), so an agent knows this is a composite retrieval/assembly call rather than a plain lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from memory_search or memory_get, leaving ambiguity with those siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

'Start here for any question about the user's past work' is a clear default-entry routing instruction that tells the agent when this tool is the first move. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer memory_search for narrow lookups), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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