memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only adds 'with full text', which implies a behavior but doesn't explain safety, authentication, or side effects. More context is needed for a read operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence adds value and is directly relevant to the tool's purpose.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic understanding. However, it lacks details on return format or how 'full text' differs from other retrieval tools, leaving gaps in completeness.

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% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Memory ID to retrieve'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but per rules, high coverage justifies a baseline of 3.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('a specific memory'), and the key qualifier ('by ID with full text'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like memory_get_multiple and memory_get_recent.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_get_recent for recent memories or memory_search for query-based retrieval). The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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