memex_get

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies that unknown ids are errors, and it clarifies the verbatim returning of the memory and the correction chain traversal. This goes beyond the minimal requirement and earns a high score.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the core action, scope, and return value. Subsequent sentences provide usage routing. Every sentence contributes value; there is zero redundancy or fluff. This is a model of efficient, well-structured description.

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 fetch-by-id tool with one parameter, complete schema, and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns (verbatim memory and correction chain), how to use it (resolve superseded markers, confirm ids), error handling (unknown id is an error), and what it is not for (topic search, routed to memex_recall). No output schema is needed because the return value is described clearly. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The single parameter 'id' has full schema coverage at 100%. The description adds critical semantic value by explaining that the id must be a valid record id and that unknown ids result in an error. It also implies the id is used for lookup, not filtering. Given the high coverage, the description's explicit error behavior and usage context fully compensate and exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('exactly one memory by id'), and the exact scope (verbatim, with correction chain in both directions). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling memex_recall by stating it is not for topic-based search. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to resolve a SUPERSEDED by <id> marker from memex_recall, or to confirm an id before passing it to memex_correct.' It also states an explicit when-not-to-use: 'Do not use this to find a memory by topic -- use memex_recall instead.' This is exemplary routing with clear conditions and named alternatives.

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