memory_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces read-only while adding genuinely new behavior: values are decrypted locally, the call authenticates to alalanet via a signed request, and the return is either plaintext value or a key list. Only the idempotentHint=false trait (likely from the signed-request nonce) goes unexplained.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, mode selection, then behavior and return. Front-loaded with the use case and zero filler.

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 optional-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage plus an output schema, this covers purpose, both modes, auth behavior, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents 'empty lists your keys', so the description largely restates it. It adds modest value by framing the key as a lookup that returns a locally decrypted plaintext value, but no new format, naming, or encoding semantics are contributed.

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 (recall/read) and resource (values stored via memory_put, or the key list), and explicitly ties itself to its sibling memory_put so an agent can tell the read tool from the write tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('recall what you stored with memory_put') and describes both operating modes: pass a key to read one value, leave it empty to list keys with expiry. It stops short of explicit exclusions or a pointer telling agents to use memory_put for writing, but the pairing makes the split obvious.

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