memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no error/miss behavior for an unknown ID, no note on whether forgotten or consolidated memories are still retrievable, and no permission or scope constraints. The read-only nature is only weakly implied by 'Get'.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the lookup key front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized given the simplicity of the tool, though brevity shades into under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the essentials (what it does, what key it takes) are covered. What is missing is the failure mode for a nonexistent ID and any hint about the returned memory shape, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes no semantics at all. The description's 'by ID' does tell the agent that the id argument is a memory identifier rather than, say, a task or document ID, which is a real but minimal compensation.

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 (get) and resource (memory) with a scope qualifier ('single', 'by ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from memory_list and memory_recall. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is only implied rather than declared.

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?

'By ID' hints that a known identifier is a precondition, but there is no statement of when to choose this over memory_recall, memory_list, or memory_context. An agent must infer the selection rule from sibling names alone.

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