memory_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read, implying non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose what happens on missing IDs, return format, or potential errors. This leaves the agent guessing about outcomes when invoking the tool.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the meaning of its only parameter.

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, no annotations), so the description is minimally viable. However, it omits return value details and error behavior for not-found cases. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is appropriate rather than lower.

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 schema provides no description for 'query' (0% coverage), so the description's clarification that it accepts an ID, name, or slug adds essential semantic meaning. This effectively compensates for the missing schema description, though it does not include syntax or format details.

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 the specific verb 'read' with the resource 'memory' and clarifies the identifier types ('by ID, name, or slug'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_save, memory_search, and memory_list.

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 context of use is implied: this is for reading a specific memory when you know its ID, name, or slug. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for searching or listing) or mentions of alternatives.

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