mnemonic_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the side effect of recording access (updates access count and timestamp) and enumerates the returned fields (content, tags, triggers, metadata). This goes beyond a simple read verb and provides valuable behavioral context, though it does not mention error handling or security prerequisites.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the primary action, the second adds return contents and side effect. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers the operation, return data, and side effect. No annotations exist, but the description compensates with relevant behavioral detail. There is nothing materially missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%: the 'id' parameter is already described as 'Memory UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning or formatting details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'Get a single memory by its ID' – a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it returns the full memory. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mnemonic_list or mnemonic_search, which have broader scopes.

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?

The description clearly implies use when you have a specific memory ID and need the complete memory, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the sibling tools provide context, the usage intent is clear without explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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