Get one memory entry by key

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals return specifics (timestamps, ttl, tags, metadata), null-on-missing/expired behavior, and privacy mode effects. This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise at three sentences, front-loads the core operation, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence provides essential information without superfluous words.

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 lack of an output schema, the description satisfactorily covers return fields, null case, and parameter options. It is complete for a simple read operation, though it omits potential error conditions or rate limits.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description reiterates privacy_mode behavior similar to the schema but does not add new meaning for the key parameter beyond 'exact key lookup', which is already implied by the tool name and schema.

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 performs an exact key lookup of a single memory entry, specifying what is returned (value, timestamps, ttl, tags, metadata) and the null case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list and memory_search that operate on collections or use fuzzy matching.

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 usage for exact key retrieval but does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., when to use memory_search instead) or state when not to use this tool. No alternatives are named.

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