memory_pointer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains the pass-by-reference behavior and pointer structure, but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the pointer becomes invalid if the underlying value changes. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise—one sentence with two clauses—and front-loads the core purpose. However, the cryptic 'A2A courier-tax fix' is extraneous jargon that doesn't help an agent understand the tool's functionality or context.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return type. But it omits details like error conditions (e.g., nonexistent key), whether the pointer is always valid, and what 'version' refers to, leaving gaps for an agent to safely invoke it.

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. It explains that the pointer includes namespace, key, and version, but version is not a parameter in the schema, which may confuse. It doesn't elaborate on the meaning of 'key' or 'namespace' beyond what the schema already shows, adding limited semantic value.

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 it returns a lightweight {namespace,key,version} pointer to a memory value instead of its content. The verb 'get' and resource 'pointer' are specific, and the phrase 'instead of its content' distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall/find that retrieve actual values.

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 explicitly names alternatives: 'Dereference with recall/find' and notes this tool gets a pointer 'instead of its content.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and points to the appropriate tool for retrieving content.

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