memory_get

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

No annotations provided, but the description declares the tool is read-only with no side effects and returns full content. This covers the main behavioral trait, though it omits details like error handling or auth requirements.

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?

Description is reasonably concise with about 6 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, the Args section somewhat redundantly restates the schema parameter, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an existing output schema, so the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. Missing details like what happens on non-existent ID are minor.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the entry_id parameter's purpose (from truncated entries or specific ID) and the short prefix resolution feature, enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 it fetches a single memory entry by ID, returning full content without truncation. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_search and memory_list by specifying that it is used when truncated entries are encountered or a specific ID is known.

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 provides when to use: after memory_search or memory_list returns truncated entries, or when a specific entry ID is available. Also states it is read-only with no side effects, guiding the agent to appropriate contexts.

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