get_memory

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

With no annotations, the Returns line provides the main behavioral disclosure: the operation yields complete memory details including content, metadata, and timestamps. The verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but failure behavior, authentication requirements, and read-only guarantees are not stated.

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 sections cover purpose, required parameter, and return value. The core action is front-loaded, the required argument is clearly emphasized, and there is no 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 simple get-by-ID operation, the description covers the required input, summarizes the output, and the output schema fills in return structure. The main gaps are the unexplained verbose parameter and lack of explicit sibling routing, but neither prevents a correct basic invocation.

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 description compensates for memory_id by specifying it must be the UUID of the memory to retrieve. The optional 'verbose' parameter is never mentioned, leaving its purpose to inference from the parameter name. This is partial compensation: strong on the required field, weak on the optional one.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and object—'Get specific memory'—and scopes it by 'unique ID', immediately distinguishing it from search_memories, list_memories, and get_recent_memories. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Makes clear this is the tool to use when the agent has a memory UUID and needs that exact record, explicitly marking memory_id as REQUIRED. It doesn't name exclusions or alternatives, but the ID-based scoping supplies clear context.

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