memory_patch_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the operation is a read and lists what is included, but does not specify side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Since it's a read, minimal transparency is acceptable, but more detail could be added.

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 a single sentence of 16 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and contents with no 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?

For a read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns (patch details) without needing to detail return values. However, it could mention behavior for invalid patch IDs or uncommitted patches.

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%. The description does not explain the single parameter 'patch_id' beyond its presence in the schema. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning.

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 'Read a committed patch' with specific verb and resource, and lists included components (semantic operations, evidence links, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_read (generic) and memory_apply.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for reading patch details, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios.

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