memory_get

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the retrieval context ('by its opaque identifier'), which is complementary and does not contradict annotations.

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 very short (8 words) and front-loads the core action. It could include more detail without becoming verbose, but it is efficient and avoids fluff.

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 get-by-ID tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate. It does not cover error cases (e.g., missing memory) but the output schema likely handles that.

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 carries the burden. It adds 'opaque identifier' context for the memory_id parameter, but does not explain its format, origin, or constraints beyond the schema (e.g., maxLength).

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one memory') with access method ('by its opaque identifier'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_recall (recalls multiple) or memory_remember (writes).

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 implies usage when an opaque identifier is available, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_observe or memory_resolve. No exclusions or context are provided.

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