mcp_engram_read_concept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this tool 'bypasses search' and 'fetches the complete original document', which is critical for understanding its behavior. It does not cover error cases or response format, but for a straightforward read operation, it is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information with 'TRIGGER:'. Every sentence carries essential meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only operation, no output schema), the description provides complete context. It explains the relationship to 'recall', the tool's behavior, and the required parameter. No additional information is needed for an agent to use it 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?

The input schema already covers the parameter with a description. The description adds value by explaining that the concept name must be 'exact' and provides an example, helping the agent understand the required format. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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's purpose: to read the full, un-truncated text body of a specific memory block. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'recall' by specifying that 'recall' provides only a 512-character snippet, whereas this tool fetches the complete original document.

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 explicitly provides a usage trigger: 'Use this after recall'. It explains when to use (when full text is needed) and implies when not to (use 'recall' for snippets). This gives clear guidance on when to select this tool over its siblings.

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