read_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses NOT_FOUND and FORBIDDEN error responses, ownership rules, that shared knowledge is readable, and the default behavior for optional client/project parameters. This gives the agent a strong behavioral model without needing to invoke the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and error semantics. It includes bilingual text that duplicates the same information, adding minor redundancy, but the content remains well-organized and scannable.

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-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers error scenarios, ownership, and optional parameter defaults. It doesn't detail the success response shape, but 'full content of memory' conveys the expected return. Overall, enough 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that client is optional and auto-detected from clientInfo, and project defaults to the client's default bucket. record_id is self-explanatory as the ID. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description states a specific action: read the full content of a single memory by ID. It distinguishes itself from search_memory (which searches rather than reads a single record) and other sibling write/update/delete tools. The error cases further clarify the scope.

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 clearly implies when to use: when you have a memory ID and want its full content. It explains optional client/project defaults and ownership constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus search_memory.

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