Read project memory

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations; it merely states the file path and content type. It does not disclose behaviors such as maximum byte limits (maxBytes) or return format, making the description rely on annotations for safety only.

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 one concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource.

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 is brief but sufficient for a simple read operation; however, it lacks any mention of the return value or the maxBytes behavior, and does not differentiate from sibling memory tools. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns.

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 but not maxBytes, and the description mentions neither parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining the byte limit or path requirements.

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 verb 'Read' and the specific resource 'docs/memory/projeto.md', and adds the purpose 'functional project knowledge'. This distinguishes it from sibling memory tools by naming the exact 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 description does not explicitly specify when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage by naming the file, but there is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, such as read_architecture_memory or read_file.

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