Memory Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the token size estimate ('~500-1000 tokens each'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid IDs. The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second provides critical workflow guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it does and when to use it) is front-loaded.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks details about return format, error conditions, or performance characteristics beyond token estimates. It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'ids' parameter. The description adds marginal value by mentioning these IDs come 'from memorix_search results,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full observation details'), specifies the scope ('by IDs'), and distinguishes it from sibling memorix_search by explaining the workflow relationship. It's specific and unambiguous about what this tool does.

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 states when to use ('Always use memorix_search first to find relevant IDs') and when to use this tool ('then fetch only what you need'). Provides clear workflow guidance and names the alternative tool (memorix_search) for the preceding step.

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