workers_memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Read', implying a safe, side-effect-free operation, but does not mention idempotency, error handling (e.g., topic not found), rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the verb itself.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every word is functional, with no redundancy. It could be slightly more precise about what exactly is returned, but overall it is well-structured for its length.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves significant ambiguity: it does not specify whether the tool returns a list of topics, entries, or a single entry. The agent cannot determine the full scope of what is returned or how the optional filters affect the result. Given the tool's role as a read operation among many siblings, this incompleteness hinders proper 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the topic parameter format ('topic_<id>'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it completely ignores the group_id parameter, leaving its semantics unexplained. Partial compensation for one of two parameters.

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 'Read memory topics and entries' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like workers_memory_add or workers_memory_delete. However, it is slightly ambiguous whether it returns topics, entries, or both; the optional filter hint partially clarifies but could be more precise.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implicitly the read operation among memory tools, there is no mention of when to prefer this over, for example, workers_memory_create_topic or other read siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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