art.memory.get_reference

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

The description does not disclose side effects (though likely read-only), error handling, or return format. With no annotations, it fails to convey what happens if the reference is not approved or not found.

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 extremely concise, using a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 large set of sibling tools, the description lacks sufficient context about what a reference is and when to use this operation. It also omits expectations about the return value, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 'id' parameter has an example in the schema, providing some semantic context. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the significance of 'approved' is not explained.

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 (get) and the resource (approved reference by ID). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like find_references or add_reference, though the qualifier 'approved' could use clarification.

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 explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_references or add_reference. It lacks guidance on conditions such as having an ID or needing only approved references.

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