Read Memory

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 behavioral context by explaining pagination with next_offset, the fact that it reads exactly one memory, and that embeddings are never returned. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect and what not to request.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance and a behavioral limitation. There is zero 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?

With output schema present and all parameters well-documented, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, how pagination works, and a key limitation. Sibling tools like recall are implicitly differentiated by the explicit prerequisite of an ID from recall or search.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds workflow context: memory_id must come from recall or search, offset is used to continue pagination via next_offset, and limit controls page size. This clarifies the relationship between parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and identifies the resource ('XMemo memory'), specifies the scope ('exact authorized'), and describes the pagination approach ('character windows'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like recall (which searches) by requiring a memory ID from recall or search.

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?

It provides explicit prerequisite guidance: use a memory ID returned by recall or search. It also explains how to handle long content via next_offset. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, the workflow is clear and actionable.

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