get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the empty-object return for unknown ids and the read-guard quarantine behavior (text/value withheld unless include_quarantined). It does not mention permissions/auth or any rate or size caveats, which is the only gap for a mutation-free read tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action ('Fetch ONE memory's FULL record by id') before the recall contrast. Dense but purposeful; the 'instead of paying to dump every full record into context' clause slightly restates the preceding cost point, keeping it just short of maximally tight.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the salient return shapes (full record vs {} vs withheld quarantine fields) plus the flag that changes them. Error/permission details are absent, but for a simple two-parameter fetch this is close to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does. It clarifies that 'id' comes from recall's returned ids and that include_quarantined controls whether quarantined records expose their text and value — meaningful semantics beyond the bare boolean default in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Fetch ONE memory's FULL record by id' — and immediately qualifies it with '(complete untruncated text + all fields)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'recall', so an agent can choose between them without reading either schema.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it: 'call get(id) only for the few memories you actually need in full.' It names the alternative ('recall returns compact snippets + ids cheaply') and the cost tradeoff that drives the decision, so the selection logic is fully specified.

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