read_cluster_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (none, since it's a read), required permissions, rate limits, or what the 'min_confidence' or 'cluster' parameters imply operationally. The description is minimal.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, e.g., by adding one sentence on typical use.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters (one required) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It only partially clarifies one parameter (kind). The output schema exists but the description doesn't leverage the context. The sibling list is large, and no differentiation is provided, making it hard to know when to use this 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. It adds value by listing the allowed values for 'kind', but it does not explain the 'cluster' or 'min_confidence' parameters. For example, what constitutes 'low' confidence? What format is the cluster parameter? The description is insufficient.

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 action 'Read' and the resource 'cluster memory'. It lists the possible values for the 'kind' parameter (entities, claims, methods, or all), making it specific. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like read_crystal and read_briefing, which target different resources.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., read_crystal, read_briefing). It does not explain the purpose of 'cluster memory' or under what circumstances one would choose this over alternatives.

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