memory_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read ('Fetch') and that the returned content is complete rather than truncated ('full content'). However, it does not describe what happens for a missing or invalid id, permission requirements, or any response format details.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The core action, target, selector, and output qualifier are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter get-by-id operation, the description is nearly complete: it states the input, the action, and the nature of the output ('full content'). The only meaningful omission is behavior for missing or invalid ids, but given the low complexity and fully covered schema, the description is adequately contextual.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the id as 'Notion page id of the memory.' The description merely refers to 'its id' and adds no new semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single memory'), and a precise selection mechanism ('by its id'), plus the notable qualifier 'full content.' This clearly differentiates memory_get from siblings like memory_search, memory_recent, and the mutation tools without requiring an agent to open their schemas.

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 phrase 'by its id' implies the tool should be used when an agent already knows the memory's id, but it does not explicitly contrast this with memory_search, memory_recent, or the mutation tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated, so no clear when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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