memory_wm_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses automatic scope normalization, immediate errors on invalid scope, the stale_wm flag when current_turn is provided, and the return format (rendered injection block + structured fields). It also hints at the refresh path via wm_write. This is comprehensive for a read tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adding the advanced staleness detail. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is well-structured and easily parsed by an agent.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format, error handling, normalization behavior, and the staleness mechanism. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results without additional information.

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 explains both parameters: 'scope' is the working memory scope to read and is normalized automatically; 'current_turn' is used to trigger staleness detection and returns stale_wm. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare names and types, though it doesn't detail value formats or ranges.

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 starts with a specific verb '读取' (read) and a clear resource: 'scope 的工作记忆' (working memory of a scope), and enumerates its contents (goals/todos/decisions/variables/notes). It clearly differentiates from siblings like memory_wm_write (write) and memory_wm_clear (clear) by specifying the read operation. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to read a scope's working memory for current task state. It also mentions when to consider using a sibling (wm_write refresh if stale_wm indicates lag), which implies the alternative when the data is stale. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other read/search tools like memory_search or state when NOT to use it, so it's not a full 5.

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