read_memory_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape ({key, value, found}) which hints at behavior for missing keys. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is non-mutating, what happens if the file does not exist, or any error behavior. The verb 'read' implies safety, but the description could add more context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first states the action, the second states the return format. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description gives the core purpose and return shape. However, it omits parameter definitions and behavior on edge cases (e.g., missing file, missing key). Given there is no annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the description is only moderately complete.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not. It only mentions reading from 'reforge-state.json', which implies 'key' is the identifier, but 'repo_path' is never explained. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving both parameters ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Read a value from reforge-state.json.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_memory_tool (write), scan_repo_tool (scan), and get_chunk_tool (get chunk). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. For example, it does not clarify that write_memory_tool should be used to store values, or that this only reads persisted data.

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