explain_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose the output scope by listing state components, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the memory_id is invalid, or any side effects. The word 'explain' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not stated confidently.

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, focused sentence that lists the full state attributes efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Explain' and avoids any redundancy or filler. Every word adds 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It enumerates the return fields, satisfying the need to explain output when no output schema exists. It does not elaborate on each field's interpretation, but that is not essential for a tool of this scope.

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 must compensate. It does not describe the 'memory_id' parameter beyond implying it identifies a memory. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but no format, source, or required context is provided. The single 'one memory' phrase adds minimal 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 specifies the action ('Explain') and the resource ('one memory's full state'), enumerating all aspects covered (content, cues, retrievability, importance, strength, confidence, evidence, links, suppression, access, review state). This specific list differentiates it from sibling tools like 'recall' (which likely returns only content) and 'stats' (aggregate).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only defines the tool's function, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the 'explain' action. No sibling alternative is referenced.

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