Retrieve Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve information from persistent memory', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or what 'persistent memory' entails (e.g., is it user-specific, shared, or session-based?). The description lacks details on return format, error handling, or any constraints beyond the basic action.

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: 'Retrieve information from persistent memory'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a retrieval tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'persistent memory' means, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that interacts with memory storage, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without structured output information.

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 both parameters ('key' and 'type') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'information from persistent memory', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'memory_store' or 'file_read', which could also retrieve information from different sources. The title 'Retrieve Memory' is slightly tautological with the description, but the description adds the 'persistent memory' context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'memory_store' (for storing), 'file_read' (for reading files), or 'get_messages' (for retrieving messages), leaving the agent without context for tool selection. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or alternative recommendations.

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