mem_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It conveys a read-only fetch operation implicitly via the verb 'Fetch' and lists the return fields, but it doesn't explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or how it behaves on an invalid/unknown id. This leaves some behavioral context unaddressed.

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?

The description is well-structured with distinct sections (purpose, usage when, parameters, returns) and is concise without fluff. Each line serves a clear function, and the key purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the primary purpose, usage context, parameter format, and return fields. It lacks explicit error behavior or a note on idempotency, but given the tool's simplicity and the provided return schema detail, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The schema only says 'Memory id to fetch' for the id parameter, while the description clarifies that it must be a 'full id' and provides a concrete example format ('2026-04-28-gotcha-flyway-strict-no-ddl'). This adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, especially given the schema coverage is 100%.

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 opens with 'Fetch a single memory by its full id with all details,' a specific verb and resource that clearly defines the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mem_search by focusing on fetching a single memory by its unique full id, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states 'USE WHEN get_briefing / mem_relevant_to / mem_search returned a compact hit and you need the full body, or when you know the exact id of a memory,' providing clear trigger conditions. It, however, doesn't formally exclude cases like needing to search without an id, so it stops short of fully explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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