read_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' and 'persistent' signal a non-mutating lookup of durable data, but the description does not disclose behavior for missing ids, error responses, or any other edge cases. Some transparency is provided, but not rich context.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and the structure is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what is read and by what key. The only notable gap is the lack of failure-behavior context, but this is minor for such a simple operation.

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 must compensate. 'by id' clarifies that the single id parameter identifies which Memory document to read, but it adds no format, constraint, or additional semantic detail. Adequate for a single self-evident parameter, but shallow.

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'), a specific resource ('persistent Memory document'), and a selection mechanism ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memory (listing) and write_memory (writing).

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 phrase 'by id' implies this tool is for reading a single known Memory document, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_memory or write_memory, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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