Read memory

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does specify what is returned (full content and provenance), which is useful. However, it does not state that the operation is non-destructive or read-only, nor does it note any permission requirements or error conditions. The description adds some behavioral context but omits explicit safety or side-effect disclosures.

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 succinct: one clause listing key provenance elements. It is front-loaded with 'Full content plus provenance' and avoids redundancy. Though terse, it conveys the essential information efficiently and earns a high score.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (full content and provenance details). It does not include usage guidance or alternatives, but that is covered under usage guidelines. The tool's functionality is sufficiently described for an agent to call it correctly.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (id, path, store) with clear meanings, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it remains at baseline.

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 'Full content plus provenance: frontmatter, supersede chain in both directions, conflicts, usage' clearly indicates the tool returns the full content and metadata of a memory, implying a read operation. It distinguishes from memory_recall by emphasizing provenance details, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'read' or 'retrieve'. This is more than a tautology and conveys the core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_recall or memory_status. The description does not state 'use this to read a specific memory by id/path' or mention alternatives for searching. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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