Read memory index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the file is for navigation and current status, but it does not disclose the truncation behavior implied by maxBytes or what happens if the file is missing. No contradiction with 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it highly efficient.

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-file tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not describe the return format (the raw content of index.md) or the effect of maxBytes, and it assumes the agent knows where projectPath points. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 only 50% (projectPath has a description, maxBytes does not). The description adds no information about maxBytes, which limits the output size, nor does it explain the role of projectPath beyond the schema. The description's mention of the file path partially compensates but leaves the maxBytes parameter semantically unclear.

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 specific file (docs/memory/index.md) for navigation and current status. This distinguishes it from sibling memory readers that target different files (e.g., read_onboarding_memory, read_project_memory) and from generic file reading via read_file.

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 phrase 'for navigation and current status' implies when to use this tool: to get an overview of the memory structure and current state. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other memory readers.

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