memory_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default return behavior (full content), the effect of include_images and fields parameters on the response, and the lineage resolution modes for follow (latest, full_history, all), including the crucial note that omitting follow is not unfiltered but resolves to latest. This is thorough for a read operation, though it does not explicitly state that this is a non-destructive retrieval.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence, followed by a structured parameter list. It is concise for its complexity—no wasted words. However, the parameter documentation could be slightly more condensed, and the overall length is justified by the richness of the follow parameter.

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 (context signal shows 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers all four parameters, including the nuanced follow behavior. It might mention that it returns a single memory object, but 'full content' implies that. For a single-item retrieval tool with lineage options, the description is complete enough for correct agent usage.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate entirely. It explains all four parameters: memory_id (ID to retrieve), include_images (strip image data), fields (optional list to filter returned fields), and follow (lineage mode with three explicit options and a clarifying note). Each parameter adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default, making selection and invocation easy.

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 'Retrieve a single memory by id', specifying the verb 'Retrieve' and the precise resource with a unique identifier. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_list (which lists multiple memories) and memory_get_document (for documents), making the tool's purpose 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is implied (when you need a specific memory by ID), but there is no guidance on exclusions or comparisons to siblings like memory_list or memory_semantic_search. The 'follow' parameter hints at different use cases, but overall usage guidelines are lacking.

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