zahadun_memory_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions two modes (topic vs. common entry) but does not explain error handling, return behavior, side effects, or permission requirements. It leaves the distinction between modes under-specified regarding how parameters select them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, making every word earn 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 tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is too terse. It does not clarify the two modes in terms of parameters, when to use this vs. memory_search, or what the output resembles (though an output schema exists, the description still leaves ambiguity). The description is minimally viable but lacks essential context for a correct 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions contextId and slug but does not explicitly map them to the 'temat' and 'tor' parameters. The required 'temat' parameter makes the slug-only path unclear. This adds some conceptual meaning but fails to fully explain how to use the parameters.

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 tool reads either a topic by contextId or a common entry by slug, using the verb 'Odczyt' (read) and naming the resources. It distinguishes itself from memory_write and memory_search by nature, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. However, the mapping of parameters to contextId/slug is left ambiguous, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like memory_search or memory_write. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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