aim_memory_read_all

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose potential performance impacts for large databases or that this is a read-only operation (though implied by name). It adds some context via format options but misses behavioral traits like rate limits or idempotency.

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 well-structured with sections for format options, database info, and examples. It is concise with no redundant sentences; every part adds value.

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 explains what is returned (memories and links) and provides format options. Without an output schema, it is somewhat vague about the structure, but the examples and format choices compensate. It is sufficient for a read-all tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, but the description enhances understanding by explaining the format parameter with examples and clarifying the context parameter's effect. It goes beyond the schema by providing usage examples.

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 all memories and returns them with their links. The verb 'Read' and resource 'all memories' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aim_memory_get (likely single memory) and aim_memory_search.

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 database selection (context) and format options (json/pretty) with examples. It implies when to use: when you need all memories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives.

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