Get user memory

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

Discloses a non-obvious side effect — a local skeleton is created on first read when absent — which explains why readOnlyHint is false despite the 'read' framing. It also states that existing hand-edited text is preserved and that the taste consolidator will not overwrite it, giving mutation-safety context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose then routing then side effects. The closing two sentences on preservation overlap somewhat and could be tightened, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return values (content and path). Combined with the side-effect disclosure and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds return-shape information (content and path) rather than parameter detail, which is appropriate here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read the user's hand-edited USER.md notes) and scopes the content (channels, topics, workflow). It also names the sibling it is not — get_user_taste — so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for personal context; use get_user_taste for consolidated content preferences,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. No inference required.

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