memory_get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context like 'no side effects', 'full content', and prefix resolution for entry_id, which complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured with a brief opening sentence followed by usage guidance and an Args section. It is concise but could be slightly tighter; still, it earns its sentences.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for entry_id. The description repeats the prefix resolution detail but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('memory entry'), and the key behavior (returning full content without truncation). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings like memory_list and memory_search by focusing on a single entry by ID.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'when memory_search() or memory_list() returned a truncated entry' or when you have a specific ID. It also names alternative tools and notes the operation is read-only.

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