memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that calls return short summaries by default, that full:true or id returns detailed entries, and that it is designed to be cheap. As a read tool, the behavior is clearly non-mutating. It doesn't discuss edge cases like empty results, but covers the main behavioral 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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first establishes purpose and return format, the second gives usage guidance. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to get detailed entries. It does not describe the structure of summaries or full entries, and there is no output schema, but the core semantics are clear for an agent to invoke and use the results effectively.

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 all parameters. The description adds a small amount of value by explaining that 'full:true or an id' reads entries in detail, which maps to the full and id parameters, but otherwise it does not go beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear resource ('what previous sessions learned about this app — failures and the recovery that worked'). It distinguishes itself from sibling memory_record and memory_import_legacy by focusing on retrieval, and from docs_search by pointing to session-learned knowledge rather than general docs.

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 gives explicit usage triggers: 'Search it whenever a step fails, before asking the user for help' and 'cheap to call at the start of a session'. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is actionable and enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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