team_memory_read

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it states the private/seat-scoped nature, that the return is a full note rather than a headline, and that the note carries an age the caller should use to judge staleness. The main gap is the empty-state behavior when no memory exists for the seat and any indication of what fields the note contains.

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 tight clauses with the action front-loaded and the scoping/alternative caveat parenthesized. No sentence is redundant; even the em-dash clause about the headline does real work by telling the agent what it will receive.

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 zero-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, alternative, and the staleness heuristic. It stops short of describing the note's structure or behavior when the seat has no saved memory, which is the only meaningful omission.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed to load the seat's own memory.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Load this seat's saved memory') and immediately scopes it ('seat-private'), then explicitly routes team-wide findings to the sibling team_insight_search. It also anchors the content to a known artifact ('the full note behind the headline team_join showed'), so an agent can distinguish it from team_memory_save and the insight tools without opening any 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 gives a concrete trigger ('Call when the headline looks relevant') and names the alternative for team findings. It lacks an explicit when-not condition (e.g. what to do if no memory has been saved, or if the note is stale beyond a threshold), but the routing guidance is clear enough to select the tool confidently.

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