memory_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses session-start behavior (kCritical notes loaded), the refusal of other commands until all are loaded, ownership markings on notes, and the 'missed' response for inaccessible numbers. These are significant behavioral traits beyond basic read functionality.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It packs essential behavioral details without excessive verbosity. It is somewhat dense but remains readable and effective.

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 the complexity (session gating, ownership, missed notes), the description covers the key behavioral aspects and hints at return semantics. It lacks explicit return format details, but the absence of an output schema means the description should compensate; it partially does by mentioning markings and 'missed', though not fully detailing the response structure.

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% and the description does not clarify the distinction between 'id' and 'ids'. It says 'by their numbers, several at once' but does not explain whether 'id' is for a single note, whether 'ids' is an array, or if both can be used together. This leaves the agent guessing about how to populate parameters correctly.

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 notes by numbers and can read several at once. It references memory_list for numbering, distinguishing it from memory_save and memory_remove. The purpose is specific and unambiguous, though it could be more explicit about the singular vs plural parameter usage.

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 implies usage by referencing memory_list for numbers and explains session constraints: every kCritical note must be loaded first, and other commands are refused until then. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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