memory_drill_down

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

The description states 'Read-only,' which is a behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, this is helpful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling for invalid IDs, output format details, or performance characteristics. For a simple read operation, this level is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then a clear usage directive. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It states the content level ('full or overview-level') and the context (search summaries), which is sufficient for a simple retrieval. It does not elaborate on edge cases, but for this low-complexity tool, it is adequately complete.

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 descriptions for both 'id' and 'level'. The description adds meaning by explaining 'full' as L2 and 'overview' as L1, which maps directly to the enum values. It also clarifies the tool's purpose relative to search results, adding context 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 clearly states the action (Retrieve), the resource (a single memory entry), and the scope (full or overview-level content). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_memory by explicitly noting it retrieves complete text or L1 overview rather than compact summaries.

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 description provides a specific use case: 'Use when search returned compact summaries and you need the complete text or L1 overview.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools as exclusions.

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