rememb_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does state 'Safe, read-only', which is the key safety trait. However it omits behavior for a missing/soft-deleted entry and how max_chars truncation affects 'full content', leaving meaningful gaps for a fetch 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then safety, then usage. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-record getter with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and invocation ordering. Only soft-delete/not-found behavior and truncation semantics are left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so store, entry_id, max_chars and include_deleted are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Fetch one memory entry by ID with full content'. It distinguishes itself from the search/list siblings by naming rememb_search and rememb_recent as predecessor steps, but does not clarify how it differs from the similarly named rememb_read or rememb_read_page.

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?

'Use after rememb_search or rememb_recent when you already know the entry ID' gives an explicit precondition and names the tools that produce the needed input. There are no explicit when-not cases (e.g., when to prefer rememb_read_page or rememb_read instead).

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