agtmem_read

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the non-destructive nature, so the description's additional contribution is limited to the max_tokens bound. It discloses that output is limited, which is useful, but it does not explain truncation behavior beyond that or what happens when the note exceeds the bound. The 'in full' wording slightly muddies the disclosed truncation behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the max_tokens caveat follows immediately. Every phrase earns its place.

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 two parameters and a readOnlyHint, the description covers the essential invocation details. Minor gaps remain: there is no output schema, so the response format is not described, and behavior for missing ids or tokens is not mentioned. These are small omissions for a low-complexity tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does name both parameters' roles: 'by id' clarifies the id parameter, and 'Bounded by max_tokens' gives a functional meaning to max_tokens. However, it does not explain what an id is, where it comes from, or how max_tokens interacts with note length beyond being a bound.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('one note... by id'), and a key constraint ('Bounded by max_tokens'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling retrieval tools like agtmem_search or agtmem_find, though it does not explicitly name them. The phrase 'in full' is slightly tensioned by the max_tokens bound, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it has a specific note id and wants that note's content, rather than searching or listing. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, and no mention of when agtmem_search or agtmem_find would be a better choice. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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