memory_slot_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the return shape ({success,slot,scope}), the project-over-global precedence rule, and the failure mode ('Invalid labels or missing slots return success:false'). It omits permission/auth requirements, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value, then precedence, error behavior, and routing. 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?

There is no output schema or annotation block, so the description must stand alone and does: it explains return fields, scope precedence, error semantics, and which siblings to use. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents 'label' with an example. The description reinforces 'the effective slot named by label' and references invalid labels, but adds no new syntax or resolution detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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+resource: 'Read the effective slot named by label.' It also names the distinguishing operation (read) against its siblings memory_slot_list, memory_slot_replace, and memory_slot_append, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes to memory_slot_list for discovery and to memory_slot_replace/append for editing, which clarifies context. It does not state an explicit when-not or give a condition-selection rule, so it falls just short of full 5-level guidance.

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