get_memory

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returned data ('provenance metadata and linked evidence') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence with no fluff. It is concise, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format to list parameters or usage notes.

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?

With no schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain error handling (e.g., id not found), data size limits, or whether the response is a full object or truncated.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter usage. It only addresses the 'id' parameter implicitly ('by id') and completely omits the 'cwd' parameter, leaving its purpose and context unknown.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('memory'), the unique identifier ('by id'), and additional details ('provenance metadata and linked evidence'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'list_memories' and 'get_memory_with_evidence'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the 28 sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred or should be avoided.

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