read_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation that returns full memory content, but it does not describe failure modes, response format, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with the (absent) 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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the core behavior front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second defines the critical parameter.

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 simple read-by-path tool, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the provenance of the required parameter, and gives an example. It would benefit from stating the return format explicitly and explaining the optional `llm` parameter, but these are minor gaps given the absence of an output schema.

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 thoroughly explains `path` by stating it is the value returned by other tools and giving an example, but it completely ignores the `llm` parameter, which has a default and is optional but still undocumented.

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 and resource: "Read one memory in full." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools that return partial or multiple results, and the example path grounds exactly what the agent receives.

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?

It gives useful context by saying `path` is the value returned by other tools, implying 'use after obtaining a path from another tool.' However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_memory or search_memory_semantic, and it offers no exclusion criteria or alternative guidance.

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