retrieve_memory

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: results are truncated to "names + metadata only," which tells the agent why a follow-up call is needed. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any rate or auth context.

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 lines, zero filler, and the core mechanism and the "metadata only" caveat are front-loaded before the pointers to the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description correctly focuses on routing and scoping. The remaining gap is the undocumented tuning parameters (limit, similarity_threshold), which is the one thing an agent needs before calling this search tool correctly.

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 only 20%, so the description carries the burden for the other parameters. It explains workspace scoping semantics, but says nothing about limit (result count/pagination), similarity_threshold (what it controls or how the default 0.25 behaves), while memory_type is documented only inside the schema enum text. Two of five parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 names the retrieval mechanism precisely ("Hybrid semantic + full-text search") and, together with the tool name retrieve_memory, makes the resource unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from get_memory, so an agent can separate the two siblings without opening schemas. It stops just short of 5 because it never restates the resource explicitly (memories).

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?

It gives an explicit alternative and the condition for choosing it: "Use get_memory(name=...) to fetch full content of a specific result," plus a scoping condition for workspace. It does not address other plausible siblings (recall_memory, search_by_tag, list_memories), so coverage is good but not exhaustive.

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