get_workspace_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that MEMORY.md is 'concise, auto-synthesized', 'distilled from closed motions', and that it contains priorities and decisions. This gives useful behavioral context about the nature of the returned content, though it doesn't mention return format or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence defines what the tool does, the second gives usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what the tool returns (a digest of workspace context) and why to use it. It could explicitly state that the full MEMORY.md content is returned, but the word 'Read' strongly implies that.

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 coverage is 100% and the one parameter (workspace_slug) is well described in the schema, including advice to call list_workspaces first. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a Monnet workspace's MEMORY.md'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that this is a distilled digest of workspace context, not a motion or inbox item.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use it to ground yourself in what the team already cares about and has decided', providing a clear when-to-use. It also implies an alternative ('without re-reading every motion') though it does not name sibling tools like get_motion or list_motions as alternatives.

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