memory_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: 'Aliases resolve to the canonical entity first.' However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like potential errors, whether results are ordered, or whether indirect/derived facts are included. For a simple read-only operation, the disclosed behavior is useful but limited.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the alias-resolution behavior earns its place as additional useful detail. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple one-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It could be more complete by clarifying entity identifier format, but the output schema likely covers return-value expectations, so the description suffices for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'entity' string parameter. The description adds that the parameter refers to an entity and that aliases are resolved to the canonical entity, which is genuinely helpful. However, it does not specify the accepted identifier format (e.g., canonical name, ID, natural language) or provide an example, leaving ambiguity.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get all facts about an entity.' This clearly identifies a read-only lookup operation for a single entity, distinct from sibling tools like memory_list, memory_search, and memory_recall. The added note about alias resolution further clarifies the tool's unique behavior.

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 does not explain when to use memory_probe versus the many sibling tools such as memory_recall, memory_search, or memory_inspect. It implies usage by describing the operation, but it provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion guidance to help an agent decide among alternatives.

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