get_as

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical return behavior: `{}` is returned for both unknown id and lack of access, and that the two cases are deliberately indistinguishable to prevent probing. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core purpose and scoping distinction front-loaded. The second sentence adds essential security-relevant return behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenario, scoping, return value semantics, and a security property. It is fully sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly in the intended workflow.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives some meaning: `id` identifies a memory record and `agent` scopes the fetch to a named agent. However, it does not specify the format or expected values for either parameter, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 AS a named agent.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from `get` and `recall_as`, and its scoped nature is clear. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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?

Provides an explicit usage context: an agent that found a hit through `recall_as` should use this tool to read the full record instead of the unscoped `get`. It names the alternative and explains why, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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