Read saved facts in full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return content (full text + provenance) and implies a read-only operation via 'Read' in the title. While it doesn't explicitly state side effects or permissions, the read nature and return format are well communicated, adding useful context beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and includes usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (full text + provenance), how to obtain ids (from memory_list/brief/memory_search), and when to use it (expand after triage). It is complete for the tool's simplicity, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to misinvoke.

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 already describes the 'ids' parameter as fact ids from memory_list/brief/memory_search, giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by stating 'specific facts by id' and explains the triage/expand relationship, adding contextual meaning beyond the raw schema definition.

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: retrieving full text of specific facts by id, including provenance notes. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as 'the expansion half' versus brief/memory_list for triage, making its purpose 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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'triage cheaply with brief/memory_list, expand only what you need.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives and implies ids come from the triage tools, as confirmed in the schema description.

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