vault_mem_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read and says the response includes content and metadata, but never states what happens when the ID is unknown, whether both id and observation_id must agree, or anything about size/truncation of 'complete content'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why the usage and error behavior gaps exist.

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 2-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description covers purpose and the existence of metadata in the return, but omits not-found behavior and how it relates to the other vault_mem_* tools, leaving an agent to guess on failure paths.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and its alias observation_id) are already documented. The description only echoes 'by ID' and adds no extra semantics such as which alias wins if both are supplied. 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 ('Get') and resource ('observation memory') plus scope ('complete content and metadata ... by ID'). It is distinguishable from vault_mem_search or vault_mem_timeline by its by-ID retrieval, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus vault_mem_search, vault_mem_context, or vault_mem_timeline. An agent must infer that this is the direct-fetch path rather than the discovery path.

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