memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this is a read (implied by 'get' but unconfirmed), whether missing ids error or return empty, or what limit does.

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?

There is no structure to evaluate — a single bare token. This is under-specification rather than conciseness, so it earns no credit for brevity.

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?

A two-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to explain ids semantics, limit behavior, and return shape. None of that is present.

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%: neither 'ids' nor 'limit' is documented in the schema, and the description adds no meaning for either. The agent cannot tell whether ids is a required filter or optional, nor what limit caps.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. With four sibling tools (memory_search, memory_verify, memory_checkpoint, memory_write) the agent has no basis for choosing memory_get over memory_search.

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