kura_read

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavior. It clearly indicates a read operation fetching the full memory text, which is sufficient for this simple tool. It could add detail about return format or failure behavior, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance, alternative, and selection condition are packed efficiently into the second sentence.

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-slug tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it does, when to use it, and provides an example. Nothing essential is missing.

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 a useful example slug ('storage-doctrine') but otherwise does not need to add much beyond what the schema already documents for 'slug' and 'store'.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('one whole memory'), and the retrieval key ('by its slug'), with a concrete example. It also names the sibling tool it complements, distinguishing it from kura_recall without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use after kura_recall when a summary is not enough and you need the full text.' This directly routes the agent to the appropriate alternative and gives a clear selection condition.

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