memory_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains that include_images strips image data, fields limits output, and follow handles versioning. It does not mention side effects (none expected for a read) or error conditions, but covers key traits.

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 structured with a brief top line and an Args list. It is fairly concise given the number of parameters, though it could be slightly tighter. The main purpose is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not detail return values. It handles four parameters, including versioning logic, which is complex. The description is sufficient for an AI to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides full parameter semantics: memory_id is required, include_images reduces response size, fields allows projection, follow enables lineage modes. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'a single memory by id', with options like full content or specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., memory_list lists multiple memories, memory_get_document retrieves a different resource).

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?

The description explains parameter usage (e.g., 'follow' modes, 'fields' for projection) but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like memory_list or memory_semantic_search. Usage context is implied but exclusions are missing.

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