memory_get_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the staleness-checking behavior and project-root auto-detection, which is useful, but it does not explain failure behavior for missing IDs, what 'staleness check' entails, or the return shape. The description is reasonably transparent but has notable gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded: one clear summary sentence followed by a tight parameter list. Every line adds information, with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary background.

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 single-item retrieval tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and key behavior. It could be slightly more complete with explicit guidance on when to prefer search/list tools, but overall it gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents all three parameters: id identifies the memory item, include_evidence controls evidence staleness checking with its default, and project explains optionality and git-root auto-detection. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 opens with 'Retrieve a memory item by ID with staleness check,' which states a specific action, resource, and lookup key. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search_tool, memory_list_tool, and memory_recent_tool.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you have a specific memory item ID and need to retrieve it, optionally checking evidence staleness. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use other tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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