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. It discloses valuable return-shape behavior -- edit history, relations, and diagram-specific payloads (mermaid source, node links, jumps) vs. referenced_by_diagrams for other memories -- which is genuinely useful context. However it omits the uid format/source, error behavior for missing or wrong-type memories, and whether the record is truncated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in one clause, then branches into the type-specific return behavior. The mermaid-detail sentence is dense but each clause earns its place by distinguishing diagram vs. non-diagram returns. Slightly verbose in the second paragraph.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining the two return shapes (diagram vs. other memory). It is close to complete for a single-arg fetch tool. Missing only edge-case behavior such as unknown uid or cross-type retrieval, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description's implicit constraint that the target is 'a single memory' that may be a diagram or other type is the only context on parameter semantics. With a single param and unknown uid format, this borders on needing more, but there is little the description could add beyond identifying what the uid addresses. Baseline 4 for a single-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a single memory's full record), and scopes it to a single item, which distinguishes it from search/recall/list_recent siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative for retrieving multiple memories, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single memory' versus the list/search siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative for the multi-memory case. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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