Memory Details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (source kind, value category, cross-references, ~500-1000 tokens each) and warns against redundant fetching. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but for a read-only detail-fetch tool this is adequate.

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 three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Fetch full observation...'). Each sentence adds distinct value—scope, usage rules, and accepted input formats—without obvious redundancy. It is slightly longer than minimal, but the additional guidance earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fills the gap by explaining the contents of the return (source kind, value category, cross-references) and the expected token range. It also covers the full input-ref landscape and usage context, making the tool comprehensible without needing further documentation.

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?

All five parameters already have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds meaningful usage context beyond the schema. It explains typedRefs (obs:42, skill:3, durable:<uuid>) versus legacy numeric ids/object refs, and clarifies when the purpose and force fields should be used. This helps the agent select the correct parameter for each situation.

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 'Fetch full observation, mini-skill, or curated durable-memory details,' which clearly states the verb and targeted resources. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing memorix_search for finding IDs and memorix_project_context for briefs, making it clear this tool provides the detailed record itself.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Always use memorix_search first to find relevant IDs, then fetch only what you need' and 'Do not re-fetch content already covered by a complete memorix_project_context brief unless a specific fact is still missing or the user asks for deeper history.' These quoted rules give direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, along with the expectation to provide a purpose when intentionally expanding.

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