scratchpad_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable details beyond simply 'read': notes are ordered newest first, and expired notes are purged automatically. These traits are not visible from the schema and meaningfully inform an agent about the tool's behavior.

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—three short sentences that each add value: a clear purpose, a usage context, and a behavioral note. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and one behavioral trait, but it omits return value format and does not mention how the limit parameter affects results. This is adequate but not fully complete, leaving the agent to infer what reading 'notes' returns.

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 schema description coverage is 50%, with only session_id described in the schema. The tool description does not explain either parameter (limit or session_id), nor does it implicitly address their semantics beyond referencing 'current session.' Since the description fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter, the parameter meaning is lacking.

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 function: reading short-term working notes from the current session's scratchpad, with notes returned newest first. This specific verb+resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_write, scratchpad_write, and scratchpad_clear.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool: 'at session start or when resuming a task to recover in-flight state.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is clear and helps the agent decide between this and memory/scratchpad siblings.

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