memory_get

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

Discloses behavior annotations cannot express: that reading gently reinforces the memory (which explains readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false), that superseded entries additionally return replaced_by, and the exact forgotten-state payload {found: false, faded: true}. This is a read with a documented side effect, and the description is the only place that fact lives.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly written, with no filler sentences. The phrasing is telegraphic ('Superseded: adds replaced_by, as in search'), which is efficient but slightly fragmentary rather than cleanly structured.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still flags the important edge-state shapes (superseded, forgotten) and the reinforcement side effect. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior for an invalid or unknown id versus a forgotten one.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where the id originates. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information about entry_id beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: dereference a memory id to the full stored episode plus the canonical facts it produced (consolidated_into). It implicitly contrasts with the search/fact siblings by naming what it returns, but never names an alternative tool outright, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied through the entry_id parameter ('as returned by search results or by a fact's source_entries'), which tells the agent where ids come from. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternative (e.g. memory_fact_get or memory_search), and no guidance on when dereferencing is preferable to those.

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