memorybank_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The name and 'lee el contenido' imply a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement that the tool does not modify data. This is adequate for a simple read tool, but could be more transparent by confirming no side effects.

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 short (two sentences plus an example line) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. The warning and example are relevant. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the usage tip from the example).

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-file tool, the description covers the main purpose and provides a usage tip. Given no output schema and moderate complexity (4 params), it is fairly complete. It does not mention error handling or return format, but those are often implicit for such tools. The sibling context is not leveraged.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by recommending absolute paths and providing an example ('C:/workspaces/proyecto/src/index.ts'), which helps the agent use the 'path' parameter correctly. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 'Lee el contenido de un archivo específico' which directly indicates the action and resource. The tool name 'read_file' aligns perfectly, and the sibling 'write_file' provides clear differentiation. However, the phrase 'Usa para obtener contexto adicional' is slightly vague, preventing a perfect score.

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 suggests using the tool for 'obtener contexto adicional', giving a clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., search or index). The tip about absolute path is more about parameter usage than when to invoke the tool.

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