get_observations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses deprecation, 'most expensive layer', and that it returns 'complete observation data', which is useful. However, it does not clarify side effects, error behavior, or whether the deprecated tool may be disabled or behave inconsistently.

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 well structured with sections, front-loaded deprecation notice, and a clear trigger list. Slight redundancy exists between 'Get full details' and 'Returns complete observation data', but overall every part earns its place.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, triggers, cost, and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit detail about the return shape or what happens when called despite deprecation, but the core context needed to use the tool correctly is present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It does: 'ids: List of observation IDs from search_memory or memory_timeline' adds provenance and meaning beyond the bare array-of-strings 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for specific memory IDs', and labels itself 'Layer 3', clearly distinguishing it from search_memory and memory_timeline. It also names query_memory as the replacement, making the tool's role easy to understand.

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?

Provides explicit automatic trigger conditions ('Call this when...'), an explicit exclusion ('Use query_memory instead'), and sequencing guidance ('filter first with search_memory'). This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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