Read architecture memory

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific file path and content type (architecture context), but does not disclose behaviors like handling missing files or response format, which would be helpful but are not required given the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without any filler. Very concise and easy to parse.

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?

The description adequately conveys the core purpose, but with no output schema, it omits what the return value looks like (e.g., file content) and does not explain the maxBytes parameter. Given the simplicity of a read operation and the annotations, it is minimally complete but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%; only projectPath has a description while maxBytes is undocumented. The tool description does not mention either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the missing maxBytes semantics and adds no value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action (Read), the resource (docs/memory/arquitetura.md), and the context (technical architecture), making it easy to distinguish from sibling memory-reading tools such as read_project_memory or read_decisions_memory.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_file or other memory-specific tools. The phrase 'with technical architecture context' implies usage but does not state exclusions or alternative tool choices.

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