Get Memory Associations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly concise at just 8 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by specifying what is retrieved ('direct association IDs') from what resource ('a memory node').

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage for its single parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling retrieval tools, it should provide more context about its specific role in the memory system to help agents choose correctly among alternatives.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The memory node ID.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('direct association IDs of a memory node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getActiveChains' or 'getCurrentThoughtChain' that might also retrieve related memory structures, leaving room for potential confusion about when to choose this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getActiveChains' and 'getCurrentThoughtChain' that might retrieve related memory data, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's scope or when it's the appropriate choice over other retrieval tools in the system.

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