memory_get_multiple

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions 'full text' but omits read-only indication, error handling, or any side effects. The tool is likely safe (read), but not explicitly 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and object. However, it is slightly too terse, missing optional clarifications.

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 no output schema and a single parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details on return format, behavior for invalid IDs, and does not leverage sibling context to clarify differences.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds 'by IDs' and 'full text' but does not enhance the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('Array of memory IDs').

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 ('memories by IDs'), and specifies 'full text' and 'bulk operation', distinguishing it from siblings like memory_get (likely single) 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?

The description implies bulk retrieval by IDs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over memory_get or memory_get_recent. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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