memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the retrieval action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether it returns null/error for non-existent keys, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and simple schema, it lacks context on error handling or behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for robust agent use.

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 100%, with the parameter 'key' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Nombre de la clave a recuperar.' Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like key format examples.

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 'Recupera el valor almacenado bajo una clave' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (value stored under a key). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_set (stores) and memory_delete (removes), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from memory_list (lists all keys). The purpose is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., key must exist), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like memory_list for discovering available keys. Usage is implied from the name and purpose alone.

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