memory_retrieve

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a monetary cost (5 sats via Lightning), which is an important behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, though this is implied by the retrieval action.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the action, scope, and a key constraint (cost). Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

While the description explains that it returns keys or a subset, it does not specify the return format (e.g., object, array) or describe the response structure. Given no output schema, this information is missing for complete understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage. The description reinforces the behavior of the 'keys' parameter (omit for all, specify for subset), but does not add significant new information beyond the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 it retrieves stored memory for an agent, with the ability to return all keys or a specific subset. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_store, memory_delete, and memory_list, which have different actions.

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 usage by stating the option to retrieve all keys or a subset, but it does not explicitly differentiate from memory_list, which might serve a similar purpose. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternative tools.

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