Get Memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that returning no args yields all files concatenated ('can be large'), returns empty string when no memory files exist, and details each error case. The only gap is not explaining the exact return format (raw markdown is mentioned) or pagination, but that's minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 with clear sections: mode behavior, example, when to use, error list, return type. Every sentence provides useful information. Minor inefficiency: repeating 'call vault_list_memory_files first' in both the guidelines and the schema description could be consolidated, but overall it's concise.

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 complete for a read-only tool with two optional parameters. It covers all input modes, error cases, appropriate prerequisites (list files first), and return type. With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (raw markdown, empty string). The only minor gap is not explaining how large concatenated output might be limited or truncated, but that's acceptable for this use case.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining how the parameter combos affect output (file, file+section, no args) and giving a concrete example. It also clarifies the section matching behavior (case-insensitive, optional suffix). However, it doesn't explain the exact format of the section heading beyond saying 'H2 heading', which is already clear from the example.

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 that the tool reads semantic memory from 'About Me/' files and describes three modes of operation (file, file+section, no args). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vault_read_note, vault_memory_recall, and vault_get_daily_note by focusing specifically on structured memory files with bullet entries.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (reading user preferences, principles, opinions) and when not to ('Prefer vault_read_note for reading non-memory notes'). It also advises calling vault_list_memory_files first to discover valid file and section names, which is a valuable usage guideline.

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