memory_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals a side effect ('Reading it gently reinforces it') and the failure mode ('Returns {found: false, faded: true} when the episode has since been forgotten'), which are important behavioral traits not inferable from the tool name or schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the return contract. Every clause adds value: source of the id, what is returned, side effect, and forgotten behavior. No wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how the parameter is meant to be used, a notable side effect, and the behavior when the episode is missing. The output schema can handle detailed return field documentation, so no further description is necessary.

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 schema has only a parameter name ('entry_id') with no description, so the description must compensate. It explains that entry_id is a memory id and specifies where it comes from, providing meaningful semantic context despite not detailing the exact format or value constraints.

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 tool's function: dereferencing a memory id to retrieve the full stored episode plus consolidated_into. It specifies the source of the id (search results or a fact's source_entries), making it distinct from sibling tools like memory_fact_get or memory_search.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a memory id from search results or a fact's source_entries. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and specific enough for correct selection.

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