hb_state_mem_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but says nothing about permissions, side effects, pagination, or return behavior, leaving disclosure minimal.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. However, it is extremely terse for a tool with three optional filters and no annotations, so it is concise without being adequately structured for selection.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what state memory entries are, how type/query/agent_id interact, or what is returned, leaving significant ambiguity against sibling memory tools.

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 all three parameters are documented there, including the 'type' enum. The description adds no syntax or filter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('state memory entries'), enough to distinguish from hb_state_mem_set, but it does not differentiate from other memory query siblings such as hb_mem_query or hb_mem_context.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites are stated. It is not misleading, but an agent gets no help choosing this tool over hb_mem_query, hb_mem_context, or related state tools.

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