engram_get_drawer

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 discloses almost nothing. It does not confirm the operation is read-only, say what happens if the drawer_id is not found, mention required permissions, or describe the relationship between drawer_id and the hall/room/wing parameters. Only the verb 'fetch' hints at a safe read.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no wasted clauses. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys, though that information is thin.

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 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, no parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. An agent lacks the hierarchical semantics of hall/room/wing, the failure behavior for missing drawers, and any routing guidance relative to the many sibling retrieval tools.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. 'By ID' only gestures at drawer_id (the sole required field) and gives no meaning, format, or source for hall, room, or wing, which are presumably hierarchical locators and undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a specific drawer by ID'), which is clear. However, it does nothing to differentiate this retrieval tool from siblings like engram_search, engram_load_room, or engram_history, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would pick this one.

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 at all: no mention of when to prefer this over engram_search, engram_load_room, or engram_history, and no note about prerequisites or the hierarchical scope (hall/room/wing) the caller may need. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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