gnosys_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with the precedence-order store resolution for unprefixed paths and the shape of what comes back (content, metadata, supersession links). Not a full 5 only because it does not discuss ambiguity when an ID exists in multiple layers.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: capability and return shape first, then path resolution semantics, then sibling routing. Zero filler and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description summarizes the return payload and the supersession links. Combined with full schema coverage and exhaustive annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by giving concrete path syntax examples (arch-012, project:decisions/why-not-rag.md) and explaining the semantics of an unprefixed path. projectRoot is left entirely to its schema description, which is fully documented.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus resource (a memory) with two accepted identifier forms shown by example, and it declares the return payload (Markdown content, metadata, supersession links). It is unmistakable against siblings like gnosys_hybrid_search and gnosys_recall, which it names.

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?

Explicit routing: use this when you know the ID, use gnosys_hybrid_search when you do not, and gnosys_recall for several relevant memories as context. It also states the fallback behavior for unprefixed paths (search stores in precedence order), covering the ambiguous case.

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