memory.change.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'gets' a preview, implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the proposal_id does not exist). This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information like the tool's purpose or usage context. While not verbose, it could be better organized (e.g., specific details about the preview or links to other tools).

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, annotations, and the tool's seemingly simple but critical role (preview before approval), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the preview contains, its format, or how the agent should use the returned data. The agent would need to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no information about the 'proposal_id' parameter beyond its name. The description does not explain what a proposal_id is, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., format, valid values). The tool name and description imply a change proposal context, but the param is left entirely to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Obtém' (gets) and identifies the resource as 'preview' linked to approval. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory.change.propose and memory.change.rollback by implying this retrieves the current state before approval. However, the phrase 'exatamente o preview que será aprovado' is slightly ambiguous—it could be clearer whether this is the preview of a proposed change or the actual approved version.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, related actions (e.g., first propose a change), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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