Read references memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the file path and content context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permission requirements, or how the file content is returned. It provides some context beyond annotations but not a significant amount.

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 front-loads the verb and clearly states the resource and content. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool is simple (read a specific file), and the description identifies the file and its purpose. Annotations cover safety, and the schema documents parameters. Missing details like output format and error handling, but these are not critical for such a straightforward read operation, making the description sufficiently complete for an agent to use it.

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 mention parameters at all. Schema description coverage is 50% (only projectPath is described); maxBytes lacks a schema description. The tool description fails to compensate for this gap, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the action ('Read'), the specific resource ('docs/memory/referencias.md'), and the content ('important links and references'). This distinguishes it from sibling memory tools by naming the exact file, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 through the specific file name and content, suggesting it should be used when references or links are needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it.

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