memory_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a read, implying non-destructive behavior, but it does not address edge cases like missing keys, return format, or any side effects. The minimal wording provides some transparency but leaves common behavioral questions unanswered.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a top score.

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?

The tool is simple—one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations—so the description is largely complete for basic usage. However, it could mention what happens when the key is not found or what the return value looks like, but given the low complexity, the current description is near-sufficient.

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?

Input schema already covers the single parameter 'key' with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema—'specific memory entry' and 'by key' mostly rephrase the schema. As a result, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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') and resource ('memory entry') with a clear scope ('by key'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_write, memory_delete, and memory_list, which serve different purposes.

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 key' implies the intended use case of retrieving a single known memory entry, which is distinct from listing (memory_list) or searching (memory_search). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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