Read Memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies relevance-based usage constraints and prohibits redundant reads within a conversation. This enhances the agent's understanding of appropriate invocation patterns without contradicting 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?

The description is efficiently structured in three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, providing usage criteria, and setting a behavioral constraint. There is no redundant or verbose language, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (reading files with relevance checks), the description covers core behavioral guidelines well. Annotations handle safety aspects, and an output schema exists (though not provided here), reducing the need to describe return values. The main gap is parameter semantics, but overall, the description provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'memory file name' but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid name or format. It completely omits 'max_answer_chars', leaving its purpose and effect (e.g., truncation behavior) undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of coverage.

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 the verb ('Read') and resource ('content of a memory file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_memories' (which lists files) and 'write_memory' (which creates/updates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read_file' (which may read non-memory files), leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('only if the information is relevant to the current task') and when not to use ('should not read the same memory file multiple times in the same conversation'). It also offers a heuristic for relevance determination ('infer from the memory file name'), making it highly actionable for an AI agent.

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