read_cluster_memory

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic read operation. Without annotations, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or constraints. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not confirmed.

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 very short and to the point, with only one sentence. It front-loads the action and immediately provides parameter guidance. However, it could be slightly expanded for completeness without harming conciseness.

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?

The description is too minimal given the tool has three parameters and an output schema. It fails to set context about what cluster memory is, what the output looks like, or any important caveats. The output schema may compensate, but the description should provide a higher-level understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It only explains the 'kind' parameter values but omits the meaning of 'cluster' and 'min_confidence', leaving the agent with incomplete 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 clearly states the tool reads cluster memory and specifies the 'kind' parameter values, which helps the agent understand the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'read_crystal' or 'show_cluster', leaving potential ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making support for tool selection.

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