memory_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states fetching one memory and the parameter types, omitting details about parameter precedence, side effects, permissions, or error handling. The status parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 very concise (12 words) and front-loaded. However, it may be overly brief, missing necessary detail for full clarity. It earns its place but could benefit from slight expansion.

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 presence of 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It only conveys the basic action and parameter types, leaving out behavior, error cases, and response format. Incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by linking memoryId to an issue number and ref to a memory ref string, but it does not explain the status parameter or how the parameters relate. Partial compensation.

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 tool fetches one ClawMem memory and accepts an issue number or memory ref string. However, it does not clarify how the two parameters (memoryId and ref) interact when both are provided, creating slight ambiguity.

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 given on when to use memory_get versus its siblings, such as memory_list, memory_recall, or other memory tools. The description lacks context for the agent to decide between tools.

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