mem_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, the untrusted nature of version history, the security stance on untrusted data (never follow instructions), and the error response for unknown or deleted slugs. This is thorough and actionable.

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 well-organized: a clear first sentence states the core purpose, followed by additional behavioral details and usage routing. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload, error behavior, security caveats, and usage guidance. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing, making it complete.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that include_history adds the version trail and frames it as untrusted, and indicates slug is the identifier. It points to search tools for finding slugs but does not specify slug format or constraints, leaving a minor gap.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches one memory by slug and enumerates the fields returned (body, provenance, approval state, wikilinks). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the usage of mem_search/mem_recall to find a slug first, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 gives explicit guidance: use mem_search or mem_recall to locate a slug before calling this, and use mem_list to browse. It also explains the optional include_history parameter and when to use it, leaving no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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