memory_retrieve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (retrieves) and parameter details. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the key is missing, whether any side effects occur, or if specific permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a read operation.

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 well-structured. It opens with a single-sentence purpose statement, immediately followed by a clearly formatted parameter list. There is no fluff; every line contributes to understanding the tool's function and parameters. The structure is easy to scan and comprehend.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but it lacks guidance on behavioral aspects such as return format (though an output schema exists), error handling, and read-only nature. It also does not differentiate usage from sibling tools. For a simple retrieval with straightforward parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the 'key' parameter with an example, clarifies that 'project_root' is required and what it represents, and notes the default for 'namespace'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definitions, covering all three parameters effectively.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('a specific memory record by key'). It is distinct from sibling tools like memory_search (which implies searching) and memory_get_last (which implies getting the last record). The key-based retrieval purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer memory_retrieve over memory_search or memory_get_last, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint is implicit: it retrieves by an exact key, but this is not framed as a decision rule.

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