n2_brain_read

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read of a shared location, but says nothing about what happens when the file is missing, whether paths outside the memory directory are permitted, or encoding/size 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?

Two short sentences with the resource and its location front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read, the description covers purpose and storage location adequately. It falls short on error behavior and on distinguishing this reader from the other read tools in the sibling list.

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% and the schema already documents the single parameter as a path relative to the memory directory. The description adds no format, path-traversal, or example detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource ("Read a file from shared memory") and names the storage location (data/memory/). It implicitly contrasts with n2_brain_write, but does not clarify how it differs from similar readers such as n2_core_read or n2_kv_load.

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?

"Agents share information here" hints at the multi-agent use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer n2_core_read, n2_kv_load, or n2_context_search instead. With 28 siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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