get_review_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: retrieved items are not promoted to proof, i.e. the call is non-validating and does not mutate review state. It says nothing about scoping defaults (both params default to empty string) or what the response looks like, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the retrieval content up front and the non-promotion caveat trailing it; nothing is padded. The phrase 'promoting them to proof' is somewhat domain-jargony and would benefit from a short gloss.

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 tool with two undocumented, optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what goal/session_id scope and roughly what shape the findings come back in. It explains neither, leaving the agent to guess at default behavior when both params are omitted.

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%: 'goal' and 'session_id' have only titles and empty-string defaults. The description does not mention either parameter, so an agent cannot tell whether 'goal' scopes retrieval, filters by goal text, or is merely a label, nor what session_id defaults to when omitted.

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 ('Retrieve') and enumerates the resource contents (findings, dismissals, fixes, failed approaches), so an agent knows what it will get back. It does not name any sibling (e.g. query_memory, check_decisions) to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The clause 'without promoting them to proof' hints that this is the raw-retrieval counterpart to a validating/recording tool, but the agent must infer that among ten siblings on its own.

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