shared_memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses the read nature of the operation and the return behavior when the key is absent ('Returns empty string if missing'). It does not describe error handling, side effects, or concurrency behavior, but for a simple read operation the key behavioral traits are made clear.

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 two short sentences, with the core action 'Read a value from shared memory by key' front-loaded. The second sentence adds a useful edge-case behavior. No extraneous information is included.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: action, parameter, and missing-key behavior. It does not explain how to obtain keys or whether values are typed, but these are not required for correct invocation of this tool. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 lists only 'key' as a required string with no property description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds that the key identifies the value to read, but does not provide format, length, encoding, or example. While this is minimal compensation, it clarifies the parameter's role beyond the bare schema name.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('a value from shared memory'), and a lookup mechanism ('by key'). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as shared_memory_set (write) and shared_memory_list (key enumeration) through the word 'Read' and 'by key'. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 implies that the tool is for retrieving an individual value by key, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over shared_memory_list or shared_notes_read. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The appropriate usage context must be inferred from the sibling tool names and the 'by key' phrase.

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