memory_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost, wallet requirement, default namespace, and access grant requirement. Missing details like behavior on missing key or unauthorized access, but overall adequately transparent for a simple read operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with cost and wallet requirement, each sentence adds distinct value. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema, but description vaguely indicates return values ('returns the stored value' or 'list keys'). Adequate for a simple key-value read tool, though missing details on error responses or exact format.

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%, but description adds significant value by explaining syntax (?key=...), default behavior, and access grant requirement. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which are brief.

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 from a wallet-scoped namespace, returns stored values for a given key or lists keys. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_write (write) and memory_recall (likely semantic search) by specifying key-value read semantics.

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 explains how to read your own namespace or another with the owner parameter, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like memory_recall. Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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