memory_show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behavior: it always returns the full body and works independently of the rendering surface. However, it does not cover failure modes (e.g., invalid/obsolete memory_id), error behavior, or how the full body is returned — leaving noticeable gaps for a read/expand 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 three sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the core behavior, the second gives the concrete invocation scenario, and the third reinforces surface-independence. Every sentence adds distinct value and the key phrase 'the expand path for a compact summary' is front-loaded.

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 fairly simple two-parameter tool, the description covers what the tool is, when to call it, and what it returns ('the complete original', 'full body'). The only notable gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned full body or error conditions, and since there is no output schema, a brief return-shape note would improve 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 only 50% and memory_id has no schema-level description; the tool description compensates by explaining that memory_id should come from the attachment's summary rendering. The worktree parameter is fully documented in the schema already, so the description does not need to repeat it, and the description's context about the 'expand path' gives memory_id meaningful semantics it would otherwise lack.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Expand ONE repo memory to its FULL body by memory_id' — this clearly identifies both the action and the target. It also distinguishes itself from sibling memory tools by labeling itself as 'the expand path for a compact summary'.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use scenario: when a `[memory] surface = "summary"` renders drive-by attachments, call this tool with the attachment's `memory_id`. It also clarifies the tool is 'surface-independent' and 'always the full body', but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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