read_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It notes the operation is a 'read' (implying non-destructive) and specifies UTF-8 encoding, but does not disclose error conditions, permissions, or side effects (or lack thereof). It provides basic transparency but leaves gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured for a simple tool.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context for basic use. It covers the core operation and path semantics. However, it lacks explicit guidance on error scenarios or when to prefer this over siblings, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'path' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by adding the 'repository-relative' qualifier, which clarifies that the path is relative to the repository root. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not elaborate on path format or constraints.

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 tool's function: 'Read a UTF-8 text memory at a repository-relative path.' It specifies a specific verb ('read') and resource ('memory'), and the scope is distinct from siblings like list_memories or search_memories by focusing on reading a single memory at a given path.

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 implies usage when a specific repository-relative path is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this instead of list_memories when you know the exact path.' Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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