read_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by describing a read operation. The description adds useful context by naming the two memory artifacts it reads, but it does not disclose return format, size, or whether it reads from the current workspace specifically. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second sentence gives practical usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple parameterless read-only tool with an annotation covering safety, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the files involved, and when to use it. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the nature of reading memory is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently satisfied. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb ('read') and resource ('workspace all project memory'), and even names the concrete files involved (PROFILE.md and facts.md). This differentiates it from sibling tools like read_table and list_workspaces, which operate on tabular or workspace-level data rather than project memory.

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 an explicit usage context: check memory before answering questions related to historical conclusions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is relevant.

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