memory_get

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

The description discloses one behavioral detail ('Returns null if not found'), which is useful for expected outcomes. However, since annotations are absent, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behaviors, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, using two short sentences to convey the core functionality and a key return behavior. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 lacks an output schema and does not detail the return format beyond the null case. It also omits any context about when to use this tool relative to siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among many memory tools.

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 single parameter 'id' is described as 'Memory ID', which matches the schema's coverage but adds only minimal semantic clarity. With 100% schema coverage, this meets the baseline without adding extra meaning.

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 the action ('Get') and the target resource ('a single memory by ID'). It is specific enough to distinguish from batch operations like memory_get_all, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus others. The description only states what it does, without contextual clues about when it is appropriate or when a sibling like memory_retrieve might be preferred.

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