get_memory_evidence

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses two things annotations cannot: missing or pruned evidence returns an empty chain rather than erroring, and agent auth is required when a registered key exists. It stops short of describing pagination or chain size limits, but the behavioral payoff is substantial.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the use case and edge-case behavior. Slightly dense phrasing ('Read-only grounding: lets an agent...'), but no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (L0 trace rows plus evidence profile, empty chain when evidence is missing) and covers the auth precondition. An agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only deeper return-format detail is absent.

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%, so memory_id, agent_id, and api_key are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the auth condition but adds no new syntax or semantics for memory_id beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves the raw-evidence chain (L0 trace rows) plus evidence profile for a memory. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_evidence (writes evidence) and search_memory (searches), since it is about expanding provenance for a known memory_id.

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?

Provides a concrete usage context: 'read-only grounding: lets an agent quote the original session text and name its sources,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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