art.memory.get_anchor

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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state whether it returns the anchor object, whether it errors on unknown IDs, or if it has any side effects. Minimal behavioral detail is provided.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It is concise enough for agents to quickly parse and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple, single-parameter getter, and the schema makes the parameter fully clear. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves gaps around expected return values and failure behavior. Adequate for a straightforward retrieval, but not fully 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?

The schema documents the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, including an example, so the description needn't restate it. The description adds only the resource type ('style anchor') to the parameter context, which is marginal—the tool name already conveys that. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('style anchor'), and a specific lookup criterion ('by its ID'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling memory operations such as find_anchors (searching) and add_anchor (creating).

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 appropriate usage scenario—when you already know an anchor's ID—but it does not explicitly instruct when to prefer this tool over alternatives like find_anchors or get_reference. Usage is left to inference rather than stated.

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