kura_read

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It indicates that the tool reads a whole memory, implying a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. While the read-only nature is implicit from 'read', the description adds no explicit safety or error context, so a minimum-viable score of 3 is appropriate.

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, no filler. The primary action and the decision trigger are front-loaded, and the example slug adds immediate clarity. 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 tool with complete schema and a short description, the key information (what it reads, how to identify it, when to use it) is present. It lacks explicit handling of missing slugs or errors, but such detail is largely unnecessary given the simplicity and the read-only nature. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's statement that it returns the full text.

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 schema covers both parameters (slug and store) with clear descriptions, and the description adds only the example slug and the semantic of 'whole memory.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides marginal value beyond reiterating the schema—no new parameter-level details are introduced.

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 verb (read), the resource (one whole memory), and identifies the lookup key (slug) with a concrete example. It also distinguishes this tool from its sibling kura_recall by contrasting 'whole memory' vs 'summary', making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use after kura_recall when a summary is not enough and you need the full text.' This directly names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool, providing strong usage guidance beyond what the schema offers.

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