memory_retrieve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'retrieve' but does not mention idempotency, performance characteristics, error behavior, or whether it returns the full entry or a summary. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or reliability.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first. However, the args section is formatted as a Python docstring which may not be ideal for an AI agent. Still, it is concise with no fluff.

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 the absence of an output schema, annotations, and minimal description, the tool is underspecified. An agent cannot infer what the return value is (e.g., full object, summary, success indicator). The description leaves too many gaps for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters beyond what the schema shows. The description lists 'key' and 'namespace' but adds no meaning beyond their existence. For instance, it doesn't explain that 'key' is unique or how retrieval works when no namespace is provided.

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 'Retrieve stored knowledge', which indicates the tool's purpose. The name 'memory_retrieve' and the sibling tools (delete, list, search, store, stats, namespaces) help distinguish it as the retrieval tool by key. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'memory_search', which might also retrieve knowledge but with different parameters.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't say to use this when you have a specific key, and to use 'memory_search' for full-text queries. The description lacks any context-specific usage direction.

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