memory_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful context: it returns null for missing/expired entries and describes the effect of privacy_mode. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. No redundant phrasing, and every sentence adds meaningful 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 simple key-lookup tool with a single required parameter and optional privacy mode, the description covers behavior, return contents, and edge cases (missing/expired). Nothing critical is missing for correct 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning the return structure (timestamps, ttl, tags, metadata) and reinforces privacy_mode behavior, which is not fully captured in the schema. This merits a 4.

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 'Exact key lookup' which specifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_list and memory_search. It also details what the tool returns (value plus timestamps, ttl, tags, metadata) and behavior on missing/expired keys.

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 phrase 'Exact key lookup' implies use when you have a specific key, and the mention of privacy_mode provides a conditional usage option. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like memory_search, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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