memory_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It responsibly discloses a non-obvious side effect ('Reading it gently reinforces it') and a special forgotten-state return ({found: false, faded: true}). It does not elaborate on invalid-id behavior or exact reinforcement, but for a one-parameter getter this is meaningful disclosure.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first defines the action and payload, the second captures the relevant side effect and edge case. 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?

The definition covers purpose, parameter source, side effect, and the main stale-episode edge case, while the output schema can handle return shape details. It is enough for a low-complexity get-by-id tool; the slight gap is absence of routing to sibling search/recent tools, but that is more a usage-guidance concern.

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?

The only parameter entry_id is already fully described in the schema (memory id from search results or source_entries), so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. The phrase 'Dereference a memory id' reinforces that the id is a reference, but this is minor; 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?

The opening verb 'Dereference' plus object 'memory id' and result 'full stored episode plus consolidated_into' states a precise operation. It clearly identifies the tool as id-based retrieval rather than search or fact lookup, even without naming a sibling.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when an entry_id is already available ('Dereference a memory id'), but it never names alternatives or says when not to use it (e.g., use memory_search without an id). Thus usage guidance is only implicit.

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