memory_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that filtering is supported and highlights agent_name filtering, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as default limit, response format, or search vs read semantics.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a specific usage tip. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 schema has six nested parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimal but covers the primary read operation. However, it lacks details on filtering semantics, defaults, and how it compares to search tools, making it only moderately complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description only compensates for one parameter (agent_name) and ignores the other six parameters (tag, limit, memory_type, pinned_only, since_minutes, response_format). It adds little meaning beyond what the schema already shows.

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 memories with filtering capability, using specific verb 'Read' and resource 'memories'. It provides a concrete use case (filter by agent_name) that distinguishes it from related tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage by suggesting a specific scenario (trace who wrote what), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus other memory tools like memory_search or memory_get_briefing. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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