memo_crush_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the cache holds offloaded rows, top-K rows remain embedded, and both ingest-time and proxy cache entries can be recovered through this tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the supporting explanation is compact. The three context sentences are not wasted; they explain why the cache exists and how recovery works, though some of the narrative could be trimmed without losing value.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies enough contextual background about the crush cache and its two access paths. Nothing essential is missing 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 100% and the single parameter, hash_marker, is fully documented with both accepted forms. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because the schema already provides complete 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve original content from crush cache.' The surrounding explanation clarifies the cache's purpose and distinguishes it from ordinary memo retrieval, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool targets.

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 clearly explains when the tool is relevant: after ingest-time crushing, when low-relevance rows were offloaded, and when the context-compression proxy needs to reverse a cut. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is enough to guide selection.

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