Memory read

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses the return shape (content plus version) and the exact error text for an unknown name. It stops short of describing whether storage is per-scope or how a miss interacts with the default scope.

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 compact sentences with the primary action and return value front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and the failure behavior. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 with a full output schema and strong annotations, this is nearly complete: the lookup key, the return contents, and the error behavior are all covered. The only omission is any mention of the scope parameter's effect on which memory is found.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'before the —' parsing hint and the scope values. The description adds no meaning about the name or scope parameters beyond what the schema says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (a memory), plus what is returned (full content and version) and the key it is addressed by (name). It also names the sibling memory_search as the way to obtain that key, so an agent can distinguish it from the search tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to memory_search first to obtain the name, which is a real when-to-use instruction rather than vague context. It also documents the failure path for an unknown name, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over other siblings or what the scope choice implies for retrieval.

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