get_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation with no destructive side effects, and the UUID argument defines the lookup target. It does not mention not-found behavior, permissions, or returned shape, but for a simple single-resource getter this is adequate.

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 two short, purposeful sections with no filler. The main statement is front-loaded, and the parameter note is minimal and directly useful.

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 tool has a single required parameter, an output schema, and a simple read-only purpose, so the description covers the essential invocation details. It is not exhaustive about edge cases or alternative tools, but it is complete enough for an agent to call get_memory correctly when a memory UUID is known.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that memory_id is the UUID of the memory to retrieve, which is the only parameter and is required. The explanation aligns with the schema and gives the agent enough semantic information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a concrete action ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single memory'), and a precise identifier ('by its UUID'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that search, list, or bulk-save memories.

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 implies the tool should be used when the caller has a UUID and wants exactly one memory record. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_memories, list_memories, or find_similar, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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