memory_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description supplies the reason ('Records a delivery'), which is exactly the non-obvious side effect that would otherwise look contradictory for a read tool. It also notes archived memories remain inspectable, useful state information beyond the annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the side effect and archive note are appended. Efficient for the amount of content carried.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned (evidence, statistics, recent history/feedback) and covers the notable edge case of archived records. The main remaining gap is failure behavior for an inaccessible or nonexistent ID.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema. The description only adds 'integer ID' and the constraint that the memory must be accessible, which is marginal detail beyond the schema's type and exclusiveMinimum=0.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (memory) with the keying mechanism (integer ID), which cleanly separates it from memory_search. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the ID-based selector makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you already hold a memory ID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where only a query is available (memory_search), leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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