get_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation but does not disclose error handling (e.g., behavior when memory_id not found). For a simple retrieval, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema (assumed from context signal), the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or return format, but these are partially addressed by the output schema. Completeness is high for such a simple tool.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for memory_id ('Exact memory UUID to fetch'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, score is at baseline 3.

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 'Fetch a single memory by its ID' clearly states the verb ('Fetch'), resource ('memory'), and scope ('single by ID'). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memories (plural) and add_memory.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_memories for listing, search_memories for queries). The usage is implied by the purpose, but no direct comparison or exclusions are stated.

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