memory_read

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful details: search is bounded, get returns a committed memory with its revision, and memory is permanent. These enrich the agent's understanding beyond the booleans, though pagination and error behavior remain unmentioned.

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?

A single sentence covers all three modes with clear, front-loaded language ('Read permanent memory') and no redundant phrases. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 description clearly explains the output categories for each action, and an output schema exists. However, the parameter-action mapping is undocumented, which is essential for correct invocation. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of any schema descriptions, this is a notable omission that prevents the description from being fully self-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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not map parameters (query, limit, project, memory_id) to the actions. It only implies that query is for search and memory_id for get, leaving agents to infer which parameters are relevant for each mode and how limit and project behave. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool reads permanent memory and enumerates the three distinct actions (list, search, get) with specific outcomes for each. This distinguishes it from sibling write/delete tools without needing to inspect them.

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 explicitly describes what each action returns, giving agents clear criteria to select among them (e.g., list for stable IDs, search for ranked candidates, get for a complete committed memory). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare against memory_write/memory_delete.

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