read_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about relevance and avoiding repeated reads, but does not describe return format, error behavior, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Read', but not explicitly stated.

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 description is three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the subsequent sentences provide essential usage guidance without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It lacks details about parameter semantics (e.g., max_answer_chars) and potential error conditions, but these are partially addressed by the schema and output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a basic tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It does not mention max_answer_chars at all, and only indirectly references memory_file_name through the phrase 'memory file name'. The schema already provides titles, but the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Read the content of a memory file', clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file by specifying 'memory file', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('only be used if the information is relevant to the current task') and a when-not-to rule ('You should not read the same memory file multiple times in the same conversation'). However, it does not name alternative tools, so it misses the 'alternatives' part of a perfect score.

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