get_memory

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states this is a retrieval operation, implying no side effects, but it does not explicitly note read-only behavior or what happens if the memory does not exist. The 'retrieve' wording is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args block is necessary given the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, and every word earns its place with no extraneous 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?

For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete. It defines the action, the parameter, and with an output schema present, does not need to explain return values. It could be enhanced by mentioning error behavior or relationship to recall, but these are outside the core scope.

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, but the description compensates with an Args section explaining that memory_id is a numeric ID of the memory to retrieve. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw integer type in the schema and fully clarifies the only parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the full content of a specific memory by ID. This verb+resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_memories (which lists) and recall (which likely performs semantic retrieval).

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 implies usage when a memory ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like recall or related_memories. There is no when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so it relies on the reader to infer context.

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