memoryguard_memory_read

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only,' which reassures that no mutation occurs, and 'single' clarifies scope. It does not, however, describe behavior for missing IDs, access controls, or the meaning of 'shared' beyond the parameter schema.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core operation and selector are front-loaded, and the read-only qualifier is a useful, unambiguous addition. Every word 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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does and the safety profile. It could mention return behavior or error cases, but the operation is straightforward enough that this is not a critical gap.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description only restates memory_id in the prose and adds no additional semantic value for agent_instance_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Read'), a specific resource ('single shared memory record'), and the key selector ('by memory_id'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_write without requiring schema inspection.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you have a memory_id and need that specific record. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer memory_search or other read-related siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Minimal but not misleading.

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