memory_lookup

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, reads specific file paths (`agents/memory/<type>/*.yml` and `agents/memory/intake/*.jsonl`), and returns a v1 retrieval envelope with `status` and per-type `slices`. This provides comprehensive transparency beyond what annotations would typically cover.

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 four sentences, front-loading the core action and using each sentence to add essential context: retrieval scope, use case, data sources, read-only declaration, and return format. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return envelope structure and data sources. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but for a straightforward read tool with clear schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description echoes schema info (e.g., 'one or more memory types', 'optionally narrowed to specific anchor paths') but adds little new semantic value beyond clarifying the read-only nature, which is behavioral rather than parametric.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'engineering-memory entries' for one or more memory types, optionally narrowed to anchor paths. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `memory_status` and `memory_signal` by focusing on specific entries and a retrieval operation.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before editing a security-sensitive or historically buggy file to surface prior incidents, ownership, and patterns. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives among siblings.

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