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 burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the fetch action and one parameter hint.text It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or what happens with edge cases like missing IDs. The description adds little beyond the schema itself, so transparency is low.

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, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose ('Fetch a saved observation or prompt by ID') and a single valuable hint about include_timeline. No fluff.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not deficient. The schema covers parameter details, and the timeline hint adds context. However, it does not describe the return format or overall behavior beyond 'fetch', so some gaps remain.

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 input schema provides complete parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little. The mention of include_timeline is a usage hint, not new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'observation or prompt by ID,' clearly distinguishing it from other memory tools like mem_recall (search) or mem_context (context aggregation). It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mem_recall or mem_save. The only hint is 'Use include_timeline=true when the surrounding observation chronology matters,' which addresses parameter usage but not tool selection. This leaves the agent unclear on whether to prefer this over sibling tools for retrieval tasks.

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