goldhold_memory_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core read/browse action and implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not explain what happens if both id and folder are provided, whether no arguments is valid, or what the response shape looks like. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a tool with no schema-level guidance.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence captures the two main operations with no filler. The direct-read action is front-loaded and the folder-browse alternative follows naturally. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It does not clarify required combinations of id/folder/limit, response details, or what happens with an empty call. Since all parameters are optional, critical usage behavior is left ambiguous, making the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema: it maps id to direct reads and folder to browsing, but does not clarify precedence, default behavior, or how limit interacts with the modes. It meets the minimum but does not exceed the 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource: a memory packet by ID or a folder's contents. It clearly conveys the two modes of operation, but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like goldhold_search or goldhold_memory_namespaces.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a packet ID or want to browse folder contents. However, it provides no exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use goldhold_search for query-based retrieval,' so the agent must infer the boundary between this tool and similar siblings.

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