memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: no mention of what happens when the key is missing, whether reads are scoped to a room the agent must have joined, or whether access is restricted by owner. Only the owner default hints at behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity here reads as under-specification rather than disciplined concision given the undocumented parameters.

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 values need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage on a 3-parameter tool, the description leaves required calling context (key format, room scoping, owner semantics, missing-entry behavior) entirely to inference.

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 0%, and two of three parameters (key, room_id) get no explanation at all — an agent cannot tell whether key is a namespaced path, a free-form label, or whether room_id must reference a joined room. The owner note adds some meaning, but it conflicts with the schema's default of null by saying it defaults to 'this agent'.

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 (Read) and resource (a memory entry), which cleanly separates it from siblings like memory_set, memory_list and memory_delete. It does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify the scope of the read, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to reach for memory_get versus memory_list (which presumably enumerates entries) or search_room. The only conditional statement concerns the owner default, which is a parameter note rather than usage routing.

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