One Memory page by slug, with its full markdown body: the record the growth marketing engine drafts from. Slugs come from list_kb_pages. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The page slug, from list_kb_pages. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return detail ('full markdown body') and the note 'Read-only, free,' which confirms the safety profile and adds the 'free' (no cost) aspect beyond annotations. This is useful context for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.
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, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by a concise secondary sentence about slug provenance and read-only/free nature. No unnecessary words or repetition of the tool name. Every part adds value.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input (slug from list_kb_pages), the output (full markdown body), and the use case. It does not detail error cases or response structure beyond the body, but it's sufficient for a low-complexity 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% with a single required parameter 'slug' described as 'The page slug, from list_kb_pages.' The description repeats this source ('Slugs come from list_kb_pages') but adds no new syntax or format details. With the schema fully documenting the parameter, the description provides marginal additional value, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's function: fetching a single Memory page by slug with its full markdown body. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_kb_pages as the source of slugs and specifying its role as the record the growth marketing engine drafts from.
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 gives clear usage context: slugs come from list_kb_pages, implying a prerequisite step. It also states the tool's purpose ('the record the growth marketing engine drafts from'), which helps the agent decide when this read operation is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the relationship to list_kb_pages provides practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.