read_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or whether the section must exist. The behavior is minimally disclosed.

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?

Two sentences that start with the action and purpose, immediately stating what the tool does and including a usage hint. Every sentence is necessary and no filler.

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 one parameter, the description covers purpose and usage. It lacks a description of the return value (output), but given no output schema, the agent can reasonably infer it returns the section's text. Adequate overall.

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 already has a 100% description coverage for the 'section' parameter with an explicit list. The description adds value by providing examples of the content types stored in each section, helping the agent understand what to retrieve.

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 the tool reads a memory section to retrieve project context, and provides specific examples such as architecture decisions and conventions. It effectively distinguishes the read action from sibling tools that write, append, list, search, or summarize.

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 advises preferring reading memory before scanning unrelated source files, which gives a use-case preference. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_memory or list_memory_sections, so it lacks clear exclusion criteria.

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