memory_signal_read

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: returned unread direct messages are marked read and audited, while sent messages and broadcasts are unaffected. It also states ordering (newest first) and the limit default. It omits permission/authorization requirements and pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then filters, then side effects, then the sibling pointer. Dense but each clause carries information; the only slight friction is the run-on sentence combining side-effect and visibility semantics.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return shape, ordering, filtering semantics, the read-marking side effect, and the alternative tool. Authorization/visibility rules ('visible to agentId') are asserted but not detailed, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: unreadOnly='true' excludes broadcasts and has the side effect of marking messages read, threadId narrows a conversation, and limit defaults to 50. These are semantic details the schema descriptions do not convey.

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 and resource ('Read non-expired signals visible to agentId'), plus scope qualifiers (non-expired, visible to agentId, newest first) and the return envelope {success,signals}. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling memory_signal_send, which it explicitly names as the counterpart.

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?

Gives clear routing: 'Use memory_signal_send to create a message,' and explains when to use the unreadOnly and threadId filters. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g., when to prefer memory_recall or memory_team_feed over this tool), but the operational context is unambiguous.

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