memory_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Read' clearly communicates a non-mutating operation, 'exactly one ... Markdown file' scopes the side-effect surface, and 'Path must be inside the vault' adds an important security boundary. It does not detail error behavior for missing or out-of-vault paths, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Two short sentences carry the entire definition with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical constraint follows immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the target resource, and the critical path-boundary rule. The only visible gap is explicit sibling differentiation, which is more of a usage-guidelines issue than a completeness failure.

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 schema only provides a 'path' string with no description, so the description supplies the key semantic constraint: the path must be inside the vault and point to a memory Markdown file. It does not specify relative versus absolute path format or explicitly require a .md extension, but for a single simple parameter this is adequate compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Read exactly one memory Markdown file.' It also adds a clear scope qualifier ('exactly one') and a boundary ('Path must be inside the vault'), which distinguishes it from broader search or batch operations among the sibling tools.

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: when you know a path and need to read a single memory file, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as memory_search for finding memories when the path is unknown, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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