Get Preference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., missing-key behavior, return format), but it does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Retrieve a specific preference by key.' It contains the essential verb, resource, and scoping detail with zero filler.

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 tool's low complexity—one required parameter, full schema coverage, and readOnly/idempotent annotations—the description is enough to guide correct invocation. The return format is not detailed, but for a simple get-by-key operation the return can be reasonably inferred as the preference.

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% and the only parameter 'key' is described as 'Preference key to retrieve'. The description's phrase 'by key' restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 action and resource: 'Retrieve' a specific preference by key. This distinguishes it from list or search siblings by emphasizing a single preference and key-based lookup, though it does not explicitly name related alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated: use this tool when you know a preference key and want its value. No explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools like memory_pref_list or memory_pref_save is provided.

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