memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-style operation ('Fetch') and that the result includes 'current state and revision', but it does not mention missing-ID behavior, permissions, or whether revision history is also returned. This is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the key constraint ('exact ID'), and the expected content are all included.

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-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what is fetched and what the response includes ('current state and revision'). There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about not-found behavior would improve it, but the core call path is sufficiently 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?

There is only one parameter (memory_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the lookup is by 'exact ID', which clarifies that fuzzy matching is not appropriate, but it does not explain ID format, provenance, or error behavior. The added meaning is modest but useful.

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 ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('one memory by exact ID') and explicitly names the returned content ('current state and revision'). This clearly distinguishes it from fuzzy/semantic retrieval tools like memory_recall or batch operations like memory_store_batch.

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 exact ID' implies this tool is for precise lookups when an ID is already known, but it does not explicitly state when to use memory_recall or other memory tools instead. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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