get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the complete untruncated text and all fields, contrasts this with recall's compact snippets, and specifies the empty-object return for unknown ids. The read-only nature is clear from 'fetch' and no side effects are suggested.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: purpose, usage guidance, and fallback behavior. Each sentence earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return content, and edge-case behavior. It does not enumerate every field in a memory record, but that is unnecessary for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that 'id' refers to a memory id and that recall returns compatible ids for use with get. It does not detail the id format or exact provenance, but the companion-tool context makes the meaning clear.

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'. It clearly distinguishes from recall by contrasting full records vs snippets. The scope is unambiguous and cannot be confused with siblings like recall or get_as.

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 names the alternative (recall) and gives a concrete condition: use get only for the few memories needed in full, not for dumping all records. This is direct when-to-use guidance with no inference required.

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