memory_get

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 mentions 'deterministically' implying consistent ordering, and 'List' suggests read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure, pagination details) or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 57% (moderate), and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'List' action. For parameters like owner_type, sort_order, and memory_type, the description does not explain their meaning or impact on results, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's limited descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'List local EverOS memory deterministically' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating best use cases like 'read-your-write checks, recent memory browsing, or session_id-based verification,' which differentiate it from memory_search (search) and memory_flush (flush).

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Best for read-your-write checks, recent memory browsing, or session_id-based verification') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. This gives good guidance but falls short of the full 5-point requirement for explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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