memory_get

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that unknown ids are reported per-id as 'unknown' and never cause the whole batch to fail—critical error-handling behavior that is not visible in the schema. It also reinforces the read-only nature and highlights the batching capability, adding genuine behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second gives the workflow and usage order, and the third details error behavior. There is no fluff or repetition; the description is tightly packed and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, error handling, and the relationship to its sibling. The 'FULL' qualifier and the per-id unknown example give enough detail for an agent to anticipate the response shape without needing a formal output schema.

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 describes the 'ids' parameter as 'from a detail:"index" lookup', so baseline is 3. The description adds the selection criterion ('title/tokens_estimate justify the fetch') and emphasizes the batched nature of the call, providing marginal but meaningful extra guidance beyond the 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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Batch-fetch FULL memory entries by id') and explicitly frames the tool as the 'second half of the index-first retrieval workflow', distinguishing it from sibling memory_lookup. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns (full entries as opposed to index summaries).

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 provides an explicit when-to-use workflow: call memory_lookup with detail:'index' first, select ids based on title/tokens_estimate, then fetch them here in ONE batched call. It also names the alternative (memory_lookup) and the order of operations, leaving no ambiguity about usage context.

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