Get Short-Term Memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the retrieval action and ordering but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 purpose ('Retrieve all short-term memories') and adds a useful constraint ('newest first') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or integration with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's no need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('all short-term memories') with a specific ordering constraint ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from other memory-related tools like getLongTermMemory or searchLongTermMemory. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getMemoryStats or getThinkingStats which might also involve memory retrieval, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like getLongTermMemory, searchLongTermMemory, or getMemoryStats. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether short-term memories must exist or if this is part of a thought process, and doesn't mention exclusions or complementary tools.

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