Stateless Agent Memory Engine (SAME)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about path relativity ('Paths are relative to the vault root') and clarifies that it returns 'full markdown text content', which goes beyond the safety information provided by 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?

The description is efficiently structured with three focused sentences: purpose statement, usage guidance, and return value clarification. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero wasted words, and key information is 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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, path format, and return content, which is sufficient given the tool's low complexity and good annotation coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting the single 'path' parameter as 'Relative path from vault root'. The description repeats this same information without adding additional semantic context or format details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Read the full content') and resource ('of a note'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_notes (which finds notes) or save_note (which creates/updates notes). It explicitly defines the scope as reading complete text content.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('after search_notes returns a relevant result and you need the complete text'), naming the specific sibling tool (search_notes) as the precursor. It clearly indicates the workflow relationship between tools.

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