memory_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds path-scoping behavior (relative to memory root, bare-name convention) but does not mention error handling, truncation behavior, or return format. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate though not rich.

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 core statement is front-loaded and compact, but the Chinese translation repeats the English content verbatim, adding no new information for an AI agent. The description could be trimmed to the English portion without losing value.

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 2-parameter read tool with readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers the crucial path format accurately. It omits max_chars and return-value details, but these are either self-evident or low-risk. Overall complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It explains the required 'path' parameter well ('relative to memory root', bare name vs domain path), but does not mention 'max_chars' at all. The optional parameter is left entirely to inference from its name and default.

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 the exact operation: 'Read a single .md file by path (relative to memory root).' The examples of MEMORY.md and web/2026-08-20.md make the resource format concrete, and this is clearly distinct from siblings like memory_search (search), memory_list (list), and memory_domains.

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 implies the tool is for reading a known file path, and the path-resolution rules (bare name for top-level MEMORY.md, path for domain files) give clear context on how to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the distinction from search/list tools is reasonably clear.

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