memory_retrieve

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It states the action but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only), performance implications, or any other behavioral constraints or requirements.

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, concise sentence that effectively summarizes the tool's functionality without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and directly to the point.

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 is complete enough for a basic understanding, but it lacks some context. It does not describe the output format or structure (though no output schema is provided), nor does it explain the relationship to sibling tools or the meaning of 'actor' and 'memories' in this domain. This missing context may lead to ambiguity in edge cases.

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 schema covers all 8 parameters with individual descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but per the rubric, the baseline for high schema coverage is 3. The parameter names and descriptions are clear enough.

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 ('Retrieve') and the resource ('memories for an actor'), and mentions optional filtering, semantic search, and date range constraints. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_get, which might also retrieve a specific memory, so it is not perfectly distinct.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_compile_context, memory_summarize, or memory_get. No explicit use cases or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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