get_document_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context that sections are excluded by default and always strictly capped, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what exactly the overview contains, pagination, or the nature of the cap beyond the section_limit parameter.

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 concise, with two short sentences that are front-loaded ('Get a compact overview') and no verbosity. Every sentence adds value, though the content is sparse. It is compact, fitting the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a baseline: it conveys the tool's compact nature and section behavior. However, it leaves ambiguities about what 'overview' includes (e.g., metadata, summaries) and lacks clarity on return format or when to use this vs. fetching a full document. The description does not fully compensate for the absent output schema.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It only indirectly references sections via 'Sections are excluded by default' (relating to include_sections) and 'always strictly capped' (relating to section_limit), but does not explicitly explain record_id, section_limit, or include_sections. This is insufficient for full parameter comprehension.

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 'Get a compact overview' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a condensed view of a document memory, which is distinct from sibling tools like fetch_document_section or search. However, it lacks specifics on the exact resource scope or what 'overview' includes beyond sections, so it is slightly vague.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives like fetch_document_section or search, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context of siblings implies it is for a high-level summary, but this is not articulated.

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