memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose behavior on missing IDs, return values, authentication requirements, or error handling. It adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

A single concise sentence, 'Fetch one memory by id.', effectively communicates the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is largely complete. It could mention what happens if the ID is not found, but the output schema and simple nature reduce the need for that detail.

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 schema has one parameter (record_id) with no description, and the phrase 'by id' clarifies that record_id is the memory identifier. However, it provides no format, constraints, or examples, and schema coverage is 0%. The description offers only minimal compensation.

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 'Fetch one memory by id.' uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the resource ('memory'), and specifies the scope ('by id'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_search (which likely searches) and memory_recent (which lists).

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?

'By id' implies the tool is appropriate when the exact record ID is known, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like memory_search. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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