memory_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-trivial behavior beyond that: unknown or foreign ids are refused, and the exact fields returned (content, tags, layer, importance, created_at). It doesn't cover output pagination or error shape, but for a single-id lookup this is solid.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by validity rules and the batch alternative. Every clause carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields. Combined with the id-validity rule and the batch escape hatch, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents memory_id as a UUID from memory_store or memory_search, so the description's id provenance largely repeats structured data. It does hint at id validity semantics via the foreign-id refusal, which is a small addition over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one of your memory entries by id') and enumerates the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_fetch_batch by routing multi-id reads there.

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?

Explicitly names where valid ids come from (memory_store or memory_search), states the failure condition (unknown or foreign ids refused), and points to memory_fetch_batch for the multi-id case. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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