Get memory

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's job is supplementary — and it does add real value by disclosing the return granularity (full text vs. search excerpt). It omits behavior for a missing/invalid id (error vs. empty result), which for a mutation-free read is a modest gap.

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?

Two short sentences, verb-and-resource first, alternative second. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what comes back (the whole text) and when to prefer it over search. Only not-found/error semantics are unaddressed.

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 0%, but the schema itself constrains id tightly (uuid format plus an explicit pattern), so the agent knows the expected shape. The description only says "by id" and adds no hint about where to obtain it or whether missing ids error out, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("Fetch one memory in full by id") with unambiguous scope — single record, full content. It also names the sibling memory_search and distinguishes the two by what each returns (excerpt vs. whole text).

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?

Explicitly states the selection condition: call this "when the excerpt is not enough and you need the whole text," contrasting with memory_search. That is a concrete when-to-use rule plus the alternative, not just implied context.

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