commonly_read_agent_memory

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

The annotation only declares readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that the envelope contains soul, long_term, and visibility-typed sections, which is genuinely useful context given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing the return shape, size, or what happens when no memory exists, and the bare ADR-003 reference is opaque to an agent that has not read the ADR.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no throat-clearing; the verb and resource come first and the enumerated payload follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information, aside from the borderline-useful ADR-003 citation.

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 read-only, zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description carries most of the burden and does state what is returned. What remains unstated — visibility rules between agents, empty-memory behavior, and response format — is minor but non-trivial.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly introduces no parameter expectations that would confuse the caller.

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 names a specific verb (read) and resource ("this agent's memory envelope") and enumerates the components returned: soul, long_term, and visibility-typed sections. That distinguishes it from the write counterpart commonly_write_agent_memory, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and possessive "this agent's" — an agent can infer it should call this to load its own persisted memory, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer commonly_get_context or commonly_save_my_memory, and no prerequisites.

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