Get Memory

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description explains that no args returns all files (can be large), returns empty string if no files, errors, and the internal structure (dated bullet entries under H2). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: starts with a clear purpose, then details parameter combinations, use cases, and errors. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No fluff.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (raw markdown text, empty string) and covers errors. With only 2 simple parameters, it is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: explains the effect of file and section (single file vs. H2 section), provides an example, and clarifies that section matching is case-insensitive. This goes well beyond the 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 clearly states 'Read semantic memory from About Me/ files' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_read_note for non-memory notes, and explains the behavior for different argument combinations (file only, file+section, no args).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (reading user preferences, principles, opinions) and when not to use (prefer vault_read_note for non-memory notes). Also advises to call vault_list_memory_files first to discover valid names, providing clear context and alternatives.

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