memory_context_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: searches all configured AGENT_MEM_CONTEXT_DIRS and truncates output to max_chars. It doesn't cover error handling for missing files, but the safety profile is well-covered 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?

Exactly three short sentences. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a usage hint and return type. No redundant wording—every sentence earns its place.

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?

With annotations covering safety, schema covering parameters, and the description stating return type and truncation, the tool is well-documented. The only minor gap is lack of error behavior (e.g., file not found), but this is not critical given the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 reported as 0%, but the schema itself provides clear descriptions for filename ('Filename or relative path...') and max_chars ('Max characters to return'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies, with schema doing the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Read' and specific resource 'file from external context directories'. It also differentiates from siblings like memory_read by specifying 'external context directories' and mentions using memory_context_dirs for listing, reinforcing its distinct role.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite: 'Use memory_context_dirs to list available files first.' This clarifies when to use the tool in a workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like memory_read or memory_search, so a small deduction.

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