memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions token count and progressive disclosure but does not confirm safe read-only operation, authentication needs, or side effects.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading essential info. However, the phrasing 'Layer 3: full observation content by IDs (~200 tokens/result)' is somewhat cryptic without broader context.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return structure but only mentions content and token count. It omits handling of invalid IDs, error cases, and result format, leaving agents underinformed.

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 input schema already provides full coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full observation content by IDs and positions it as the final layer in a progressive-disclosure system, providing a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation from other layers.

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?

The description mentions 'progressive-disclosure layer' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_search or memory_list, nor does it provide criteria or exclusions.

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