memory_get

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: reading gently reinforces the memory (explaining why readOnlyHint=false), superseded entries include replaced_by, and forgotten entries return {found: false, faded: true}. It omits permission/auth context, but the reinforcement side effect is the key non-obvious trait and it is disclosed.

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 action and kept short. Some fragments ('Superseded: adds replaced_by, as in search.') are terse to the point of being cryptic, but there is little wasted text.

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 shape need not be spelled out, and the description still adds the special-case response for forgotten entries. For a single-parameter read tool it is nearly complete, missing only explicit routing among sibling memory reads.

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 entry_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including where the id comes from. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond that, 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 (dereference) and resource (a memory id to its full stored episode plus consolidated_into), and clarifies what the payload contains. It differentiates the episode payload from the canonical facts it produced, but does not explicitly contrast with near-siblings like memory_fact_get or memory_episode_summary.

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: you call it when you hold a memory id from search results or a fact's source_entries and want the full episode. The 'as in search' clause hints at behavioral parity with search, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as memory_fact_get.

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