Read decisions memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific file path and content type, but does not disclose return format or error behaviors, which is acceptable 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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the essential information without waste. It earns its place.

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-only tool with strong annotations, the description provides the exact file path and content type. It does not describe the return value, but that is intuitive for a read tool. The sibling context and schema cover the essentials.

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 documents projectPath as 'Absolute project directory path' and includes maxBytes with defaults. The description's mention of 'docs/memory/decisoes.md' implies the file is relative to projectPath, adding context. However, it does not clarify maxBytes, but the parameter is self-explanatory with a default. Overall, the description adds some meaning 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') and identifies the exact resource ('docs/memory/decisoes.md with simplified ADR records'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling memory readers like read_architecture_memory or read_project_memory, which read different files.

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 for reading decision memory by naming the specific file path, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over generic read_file or other memory readers. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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