get_skill_memory

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes it's a safe read operation. The description goes beyond that by explaining what the memory contains ('durable lessons, workarounds, and user preferences') and how it improves runs. This provides meaningful context beyond the annotation, though it doesn't cover edge cases like missing memory.

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 compact and well-structured: a concise purpose statement, a practical usage tip, and a clear Args section. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, timing, and the key parameter. The only gap is the unexplained 'config' parameter, but since it's optional with a default null, the agent can still invoke the tool correctly by omitting it. The description is nearly complete for this tool's complexity.

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 description adds valuable context for skill_id, including examples ('seo/keyword_research') and clarification of built-in vs user/project IDs. However, the 'config' parameter is completely undocumented, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a skill's accumulated MEMORY (learnings/workarounds from prior runs).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill (which likely reads skill definitions) and read_skill_file (which reads files), by emphasizing the 'MEMORY' concept.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call this at the START of running a skill.' It also explains the value (carries durable lessons, workarounds, preferences). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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