read_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses Hebbian reinforcement and that depth/access counts increase only on this full read, which are critical side effects. However, it does not mention idempotency, error behavior, or permissions, leaving some 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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and return, the second provides key usage detail. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main function (reading a memory and connected clusters) and the side effect (reinforcement). However, it lacks details on error cases, output format, and the effect of the namespace parameter. Still, it provides sufficient context for a typical read operation.

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 description must compensate. It mentions via_key_id and its role in reinforcement, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the required memory_id parameter or the optional namespace parameter, leaving them undocumented.

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 reads a full memory selected through read_key, and distinguishes from siblings like read_key (which reads a key) and recall (likely a lighter read). It specifies the return includes memory and connected key clusters, making the purpose specific and unique.

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 context on when to use the tool (for a full read that reinforces edges and updates depth/access counts) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives among siblings. The guidance on passing via_key_id from a selected key is helpful but incomplete for decision-making.

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