get_agent_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses the non-mutating verb 'retrieves,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any authentication or rate-limit considerations. The description is adequate but not fully transparent about behavior beyond the basic retrieval.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately lists the relevant categories. No filler or repetition; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the available categories. It does not describe what the response looks like, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'filter_category' described as 'Category of memory to retrieve' and an enum listing the same categories mentioned in the description. The description adds the purpose ('to guide coding decisions') but no additional per-parameter details, so it provides minimal value beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb (retrieves) and resource (agent's persistent memory) and enumerates the memory categories (user preferences, mistake autopsies, project rules), making the primary function obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling search_agent_memory, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one over the other.

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?

The purpose implies usage (retrieve memory to guide coding decisions) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_agent_memory or the logging/sync tools. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the description alone.

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