memory_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the token cost estimate (~200 tokens/result), which helps an agent budget context. It does not, however, describe return shape or how trimming interacts with the 'full' flag beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two terse fragments, both front-loaded and information-dense: layer position first, then cost signal. Nothing extraneous.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers layer position, cost, and scope adequately. Minor gap: it never sketches what an 'observation' record contains should the agent need to interpret results.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'full' trim behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: retrieve full observation content by IDs. 'Layer 3: ... Final progressive-disclosure layer' positions it clearly relative to memory_index and memory_search without naming them explicitly, so an agent can infer it is the terminal fetch step. It falls short of 5 because the sibling distinction is implied by layer numbering rather than stated.

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 phrase 'Final progressive-disclosure layer' implies you call this after the earlier index/search layers, but no sibling is named and no explicit when/when-not is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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