Read Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the operation as a read with no implied mutation, but it does not describe behavior for missing sections, full-memory reads, or potential size limits. For a simple read tool this is adequate but minimal.

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 crisp sentences, front-loading the primary action and then giving a useful pointer to list_sections. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to use it correctly, including a fallback workflow. It could briefly mention that omitting 'section' reads all memory, but that is already covered by the parameter 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 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'section' parameter and the 'Omit for full memory' behavior. The description adds workflow context but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the action ('Read') and the resource ('persistent memory'), making the core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from search_memory, but the direct read vs. search distinction is reasonably implicit.

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 to use list_sections first if unsure where information is stored, then read the section directly. This is clear practical guidance for at least one important alternative, though it does not mention other read-like siblings such as search_memory.

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