memory_transcript_read

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only ('纯读不写'), describes the output structure (turn sequences with numbering and timestamps), explains the adapter fallback behavior (auto-detect or explicit, with error message listing available adapters), and notes that missing logs will cause an error. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 structured into a logical flow: main purpose, usage pattern with since_turn, then adapter behavior and error conditions. It is four sentences but dense with information, front-loaded with the core function and then branching into usage details. It is not overly verbose for the complexity it covers.

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's complexity (read logs, parse turns, support filtering, adapter handling) and the absence of annotations, the description covers essential aspects: parameters, usage integration with wm_read/wm_write, error handling (missing log, adapter detection), and output format ('轮次序列（user/assistant/tool，含轮次编号与时间戳）'). No critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 explain all three parameters. It does: log_path is implied ('读取 agent 会话日志'), adapter behavior is explained ('adapter 缺省按日志文件名自动识别，识别不了需显式指定'), and since_turn is clearly defined ('传 since_turn=... 只返回水位之后的新轮次'). Meaning is fully compensated beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('读取' = read), a specific resource ('agent 会话日志' = agent session logs), and the output transformation ('解析成干净的轮次序列' = parse into clean turn sequences). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing '纯读不写' (pure read, no write) and unique functionality (transcript reading) not covered by other tools like memory_wm_read or memory_search.

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 clear context for use: it explains the integration with memory watermark ('配合工作记忆水位做新鲜度补偿') and explicitly references sibling tools memory_wm_read and memory_wm_write, showing how since_turn should be used. It also covers adapter auto-detection behavior and error conditions. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause but the context is sufficiently clear.

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