Get Long-Term Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving associations up to a depth, which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'associations' entail. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('retrieve a memory node by ID') and includes key details ('with its associations up to specified depth'). There's no wasted wording, making it highly concise and 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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-focused), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main action and scope but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or sibling tool differentiation, which would enhance completeness further.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('id' and 'depth') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'associations up to specified depth', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'memory node by ID with its associations', which is specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getAssociations' or 'searchLongTermMemory', which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 'getAssociations' and 'searchLongTermMemory' available, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It implies usage by specifying parameters but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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