jambavan_memory_read

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it explains that setting provider=mempalace gives explicit read-only access, that ordinary reads don't trigger MemPalace, and that scope/collection map to MemPalace wing/room. It also discloses the BM25 search mechanism and default limits.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and modes; the second adds provider and mapping details. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers usage and behavior well. However, it omits any description of the return format or structure, which would be helpful since no output schema is provided.

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 beyond the schema by explaining the three usage modes, the interaction of provider settings, and the mapping of scope/collection to MemPalace concepts. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter behavior.

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 stored memories' and details three distinct modes: by id, by query (BM25 search), or by recalling the most recent. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like jambavan_memory_store (write) and jambavan_memory_forget (delete).

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode (id, query, or none) and explains provider options with their implications (e.g., 'ordinary reads never start MemPalace'). It lacks direct comparison to sibling tools like jambavan_memory_status, but the instructions are clear for the primary use cases.

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