memory_show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the response's staleness signals, including conditional commit_drift behavior (only when caller is inside the origin repo), the meaning of path_drift, and the effect of memory_update on verification state. This is far beyond a basic fetch and gives the agent actionable insight.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: it explains the purpose, describes the response fields, and gives actionable follow-up advice. The use of bullet-like formatting improves scannability. It is dense but not wasteful, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and an output schema that presumably describes return fields, the description adds critical interpretive context: how to interpret staleness signals, when commit_drift is present, and what to do in each scenario. This makes the tool's behavior and workflow complete for an agent, with no significant gaps.

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%, but there is only one parameter (id) of type string. The description says 'by id' but does not specify where the id comes from or its format. However, the context of memory_search implies the id originates from search results. Since the parameter is simple and the description is not misleading, a score of 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Fetch a single memory's full content by id.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like memory_search by noting it is typically used after a search snippet looks relevant, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Typically used after a memory_search snippet looks relevant.' It also gives conditional next steps—using memory_verify if the content holds, memory_update if drifted—and warns to spot-check before relying. This is clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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