get_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no behavior when the id is unknown, no mention of scoping/permissions, no note on whether memory content is trimmed. With annotations carrying the load, this is minimal-but-not-broken.

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?

At four words there is zero waste and the key qualifier ('by id') is front-loaded. Size is not the problem; the phrasing is a sentence fragment rather than a usable statement, so it reads as under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the piece only the description can supply: how this differs from search_memories/get_recent_context and what an id looks like, which is thin for a tool in a 7-sibling cluster.

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 carries the full burden for the single id parameter. It only says 'by id' and gives no expected format (UUID, slug, opaque handle) or example, leaving the agent to guess what a valid identifier looks like.

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 fragment identifies the resource (a single memory) and its lookup key (id), which weakly distinguishes it from query-based siblings like search_memories. However, it lacks a verb and reads as a trimmed restatement of the name 'get_memory'. The purpose is inferable but not stated with specificity.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a dense sibling set (get_context, get_recent_context, search_memories, list_spaces). The agent must infer that it should call this only when it already holds a memory id, and nothing warns what to do if it does not.

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