memory.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is a read operation (fetch), implying idempotency and non-destructiveness. Though it doesn't detail behavior on missing IDs, rate limits, or auth needs, the core behavioral trait (safe fetch) is well communicated for memory tools.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb+resource, zero waste. Every sentence earns its place: first states the core action precisely, second provides usage context. Ideal for an AI to quickly parse.

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 low complexity (1 required param, no output schema, no enums, 3 siblings in same domain), the description is sufficient. It explains why this tool exists (full content retrieval) and when to use it. Could optionally mention that it returns only one entry by ID, but the name and context make that clear. It covers the essential gap that the schema cannot.

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% and the description adds value beyond the schema: it contextually links the tool to memory.search, explaining why you'd use this (get full content) vs search (which may truncate). The schema documents the 'id' property but the description gives it operational meaning. Could still clarify the optionality of project_id vs project_root.

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 action ('Fetch a single memory entry by ID') and resource ('memory entry'), distinguishing it from siblings like memory.search (search) and memory.list (list) which are different operations. The specificity of 'by ID' and 'full content' further clarifies the purpose.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use after memory.search with max_content_length to retrieve the full content.' This provides a clear workflow context and distinguishes it from memory.search, which may not return full content. The agent can infer when not to use it (e.g., for searching or listing).

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