memory_get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes the return structure (root, fragments, version) and behavior (ordered fragments, version handling). It does not mention side effects, but as a read tool, none are expected.

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-organized with a docstring format (Args/Returns). It is informative but slightly verbose for a tool description; however, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, versioning, output schema), the description covers all necessary elements: document retrieval specifics, parameter defaults, filtering, and return shape. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and expected values (e.g., content_mode options, preview_chars default, node_kinds as optional filter, version handling). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a stored document and its fragments by document key, which is a specific action on a distinct resource. It differentiates from siblings like memory_get (likely simpler) and memory_list (list all) by focusing on a single document retrieval with fragmentation support.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool (to retrieve a document by key) and specifies optional parameters for filtering. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context of sibling tools implies alternatives for listing or simpler gets.

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