memory_get

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 genuinely non-obvious behavior: another wallet's memory and a deleted id both return an identical 404, so the tool cannot be used to probe for existence. It stops short of describing the return payload (no output schema) or the memory_prepare/signature prerequisite, so gaps remain.

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 sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and the error semantics appended without wasted words. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 five-parameter, all-required tool with no output schema, the description leaves the return shape undefined and omits the memory_prepare prerequisite workflow entirely. It covers identity scoping and error behavior adequately but is thin on what the agent actually receives back.

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%, including the cross-reference that nonce/timestamp/signature come from memory_prepare, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the single-use nature of the nonce beyond what is structured.

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 and resource ('Fetch one of your memories by id'), which cleanly separates it from memory_search, memory_history, and memory_delete in the sibling list. The parenthetical adds the key scope constraint that only own, non-deleted ids resolve.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' – the agent can infer this is the direct-lookup counterpart to memory_search – but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is stated. It never says to prefer memory_search when the id is unknown.

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