get_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a read (full text retrieval) and lists included fields (confidence score, lifecycle status), but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or that it does not modify memory. It also omits potential error cases, but for a simple get, this is acceptable.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Full text of one memory by id') and includes no filler. It efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in detail, but it does mention key output components (confidence score, lifecycle status). It covers the essentials for calling the tool, though it could hint that the id must reference an existing memory, which is implicit.

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 single parameter entry_id is given meaning beyond the schema: the description explains it is an id and that a unique prefix is acceptable. This adds practical value since the schema only provides the type and title with no description.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('memory') and identifies the retrieval by id, which clearly distinguishes it from search_memory (which likely finds by criteria) and list_recent (which lists recent memories). It also adds the detail that a unique prefix is acceptable, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that search_memory should be used when the id is unknown, or that list_recent is for browsing. The phrase 'by id' implies a direct lookup, but explicit conditions for use are absent.

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