Read chat context memory

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by specifying the exact file path and its contents, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not disclose error handling or return format, but this is less critical 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action and resource. It is concise while including the file's purpose.

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?

For a simple read tool with good annotations and a straightforward schema, the description is complete enough: it names the exact file and the context it contains. It does not cover edge cases like missing files or truncation, but these are implied by the schema and tool type.

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 description does not explain parameters directly. The schema provides a description for projectPath and constraints for maxBytes, but the description does not explicitly tie projectPath to the file path. This is adequate but not additive 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a precise resource ('docs/memory/contexto-chat.md') and clarifies content ('current operational session context'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling memory-read tools like read_onboarding_memory or read_project_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?

The description conveys a clear use case: when you need the current operational session context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full usage-guidance coverage.

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