Retrieve the full content of a specific document by ID from Memwyre.
Args:
doc_id: The ID of the document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the operation returns the full content and the verb 'Retrieve' implies a read-only action, but it does not mention error handling, permissions, or behavior for missing/deleted documents. Acceptable for a simple getter, but not rich.
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 with the operation front-loaded and the single argument listed afterward. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler or redundant restatement.
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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description supplies the essential operation and parameter meaning. It lacks sibling-routing guidance and edge-case behavior, but those are minor gaps for this level of complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that doc_id is the ID of the document, but this largely restates the parameter name and title and adds no details about ID format, how to obtain it, or validation behavior.
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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('document by ID'), and the scope ('full content' from Memwyre). It is distinguishable from list-oriented siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named get_memory tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use get_document versus get_memory, list_memories, or search_memwyre. The only implied usage is that the caller already has a doc_id, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.
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 map cleanly to distinct operations such as semantic search, date search, inbox approval/discard, and tag listing. The main ambiguity is between save_memory and upsert_memory, both of which can create memories with similar arguments; get_memory/get_document and delete_memory/discard_memory are also distinguishable mainly by ID prefix or inbox state.
The names are consistently lowercase snake_case and verb-first, which makes the set fairly predictable. Minor deviations include search_by_date breaking the verb_noun pattern, get_inbox/get_all_tags acting as list operations while list_memories uses 'list', and upsert_memory being an unusual verb.
At 13 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a memory/document vault: create, upsert, update, retrieve, list, semantic and date search, tags, and inbox workflow are all represented without excessive granularity or redundant filler.
The toolset covers the core memory lifecycle well, including save, upsert, update, get, search, list, delete, and inbox approval/discard. Minor gaps remain: update_memory only accepts mem_ IDs, so documents found via search have no document-specific update path, and workspace management is only handled through optional name strings.