Read a memory file

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is fully consistent with a safe read. It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape (text and etag) and explaining the etag's role in optimistic concurrency for memory_write — behavior an agent would otherwise not know.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the action first, then the return value and its downstream use. Zero filler and 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers return values and the etag contract, which is the key missing piece for a read tool. Minor gaps remain around non-existent paths and how path namespaces are structured, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema's example ('people/dafarus.md') already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about path resolution, namespaces, or whether paths are relative to a root, so 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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Read one file from your memory' — which distinguishes it from list/status siblings by scoping the operation to a single file. It stops short of naming memory_list or memory_search as the alternative for multi-file retrieval.

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?

There is one concrete usage hint: pass the returned etag to memory_write to avoid overwriting a newer copy, which implies the read-before-write pattern. However, no guidance is given on when to use this versus memory_list or memory_search, and no error conditions (e.g. missing file) are described.

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