get_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no mention of whether this is a safe read, what happens if the memory_id does not exist, whether archived or deleted memories are returned, or what the response contains. "its current version" is the only behavioral signal and is not explained.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than from efficient information density. There is no structure beyond the one clause.

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 read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should explain what is returned (metadata, content, version info) and how errors are handled. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot predict the result of the call.

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% for the single required parameter memory_id, so the description must compensate. It never mentions the identifier at all, leaving the agent to infer that memory_id is the id of the record to read and what format it takes.

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 gives a verb ("Read") and a resource ("a record"), and mentions retrieving the current version, which hints at versioning semantics. However, it calls the entity a "record" rather than a memory, and offers no differentiation from close siblings like get_memory_context, list_memory_revisions, or search_memories, so an agent cannot reliably pick it out of the list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_memories, list_memories, get_memory_context, or list_memory_revisions. The description states what it does but never when it is the right choice or when another sibling should be used instead.

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