memory_get

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states read operation (读取) and discloses key behaviors: returns all entries if key omitted, supports expired filtering. No mention of performance or auth, but sufficient for a read tool.

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 succinct sentences with no extraneous information. Action is front-loaded ('读取指定命名空间下的条目'), and key variations are covered efficiently.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description omits the return format (e.g., single JSON object, list). It adequately covers input behavior but leaves the output structure unspecified, which an agent might need.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds practical context: omitting key returns all entries, and the include_expired parameter enables filtering. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it reads entries under a namespace, and describes key behaviors (all entries vs specific, expired filtering). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like memory_list, though the 'get' vs 'list' distinction is implied.

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?

Description implies when to use (to read entries) and mentions the include_expired parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools like memory_set or memory_delete suggest different purposes, but no direct comparison.

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