task_memo_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 identifies the operation as read-only (implied), but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return characteristics such as ordering or pagination. A more detailed disclosure would be beneficial.

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, consisting of one sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though a slightly more structured format could improve clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema present), the description is largely adequate. It covers the core functionality and use case. However, it omits details such as the format of returned data (though the output schema fills this gap) and any limitations on volume, which would enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'task_id' described as 'Task ID'. The description adds meaning by explaining why the tool is used (progress understanding), but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads all memo records for a task, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('memo records for a task'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'task_memo_add' which writes memos, making the purpose 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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('read before picking up a task to understand historical progress'). It does not, however, mention when not to use it or offer alternative tools, which would strengthen the guidance.

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