get_memo

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not disclose behavior such as error handling for nonexistent memos or the return format, though some of that may be inferred.

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, direct, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward single-resource retrieval tool with only two required parameters and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context to call it correctly. It could be enhanced with note about return values or not-found behavior, but the core purpose is clear.

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%, so the schema already documents both `instance` and `memoName`. The description reinforces the role of `memoName` but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('a specific memo') plus the selection key ('by its name'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from list_memos, which presumably returns all memos, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 phrase 'by its name' implies the tool is for retrieving a single known memo rather than listing all memos, providing an implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_memos or mention alternatives.

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